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

Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely long conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

  Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a bad way to organize things when a single issue overwhelms a discussion page. For what it's worth, that discussion can and should stay open until it is resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously...we finally get a clear majority on a proposal and we have someone derail the conversation with an improper close, and then I come back and someone has moved it off the noticeboard to a subpage. If we'd let the conversation go we might have actually got a resolution now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It might now. It didn't when I did it, though, because I used three tildes. :) MickMacNee, sorry if this squelches conversation in any way; it's not my intention, but 300,000 bytes on ANI is just too much. :/ It was over 2/3rds of the page. Crossmr, it's standard to remove conversations that overwhelm this page; that's why the instructions for doing so are right there at the top, under "How to use this page". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• I've moved the latest comment about the situation to the subpage. I will be moving any conversation that belongs at that subpage to it, unless there is consensus to restore the whole 300,000+ bytes to ANI. It's inappropriate to fracture it and have conversation in two places. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• I'd suggest that this was a sub-optimal but perfectly understandable response. Yes, the page was getting huge, and was totally domination this page. However, as has been noted above, past indications are that subpaging leaves only the "partisan warriors" involved. (I'm not just talking about pages realting to Betacommand, but other editors perceived-by-some-as-problematic who've been "subpaged" as well.) The topic ban discussion was preceding independent of the squabbling, I'd like to see that section restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, can we agree on some naming convention or something to make these easier to find/organise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If consensus emerges to support the now 354,000 bytes of this conversation to take over ANI, then, certainly, we should restore the entire conversation. Restoring a single section would be a bad idea, as it does not give a complete overview of the conversation to anybody stumbling upon it now. But, respectfully, if ANI has never been able to resolve issues with Δ, then perhaps ANI is not the best forum for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to highlight this person aswell, I have tried to come to middle ground he just point blanks reuses, I have even moved the pic and cut them back to how there were done for the PAST 18 MONTH, so either he off his head of wiki have never cared before? I have stated in talk page and each pic talk description aswell, yet there not good enough, I have state there needed to better explain page, I also found its DAM cheek him he the one that in the edit war AND also placing the warning to me, Judge and jury?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)

• I think we need a bit of organisation here. We seem to have various Delta/Beta subpages spread out. Heck, the Delta/Beta archive pages aren't even all subpages of the same parent. I totally agree with moving all this stuff to different pages, so the rest of ANI can flourish, but the way it is at the moment is all very confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsal Axe (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what on earth this means, but it does not help me, and also seams that if this Admin is correct then for the past 18month, umpteen admins have failed in the duties.

Previous subpages

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 1
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 4
9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 5
10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 6
11. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks
12. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Reverting of subpage

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Subpaging. In support of the principle above (which I objected to!) I attempted to move the sanction-lifting proposal to the subpage, but was reverted by Beta. I'm cross-posting both to add the timestamp, also because I consider this an "incident" and I'm requesting adminstrator action: Either move the new proposal to the subpage or bring the old one back, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it was highly inappropriate for the subject of this ongoing ANI thread to fracture the conversation by starting a new section at AN, and I have said as much at AN. Since he reverted your subpaging his new thread and since there is some disagreement from evidently involved (I haven't had time to check deeply), I've transcluded the subpage to AN so that everyone can see the entire history of that conversation. (ETA: Had to reduce that to a link, as an e-mail I received informs me that it is creating load issues...which is why it was subpaged to begin with.) Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved administrators left?

We have a proposal on the subpage that has been open for 6 days. It' has a nearly 2/3's majority support, and the support has actually grown since it's been subpaged. At some point we need someone to step in enact the proposal that the community has clearly supported and clearly given plenty of time to considering.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanctions are imposed through consensus. A "nearly 2/3's majority" obviously means "no consensus". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regrettably agree with that; however, the circumstances, increasing numbers of supporting administrators, and clear overwhelming majority opinion (short of the usual 80% community consensus standard for such cases) basically require that we file an arbcom case to enact that outcome now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard line of 80% at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. It's currently at around 29/17 or 32/17 depending on exactly how you count it (3 users seem to support, but didn't explicitly label their comments support), which shows far more than a simple majority. This isn't some 18/17 split, and the discussions has obviously been trending towards support, in the last 5 days the discussion has run 9/3 in favor of support.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the proposer there I have an obvious bias in favor of the proposal; I also have, as an uninvolved administrator done a lot of community consensus closes. I would not close this one, at this time, as enacted. One might relist it to gather additional input, but that's already been effectively done by the high profile nature of the case. Arbcom exists in large part to deal with situations "stuck in the middle" sufficiently that the consensus criteria can't be met. The supermajority we have here justifies action, but not community consensus enactment of the topic ban. It does justify a "community patience exhausted" arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then as the proposer will you file this?--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert is right: none of the proposals in the subpage, pro-Δ or anti-Δ, have reached consensus or are likely to. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could they when they're closed/shuffled around and constantly disrupted? However, I still don't see anything in consensus that necessitates an 80% majority, nor even a supermajority. What I do see is a rather clean unambiguous majority supporting a ban.--Crossmr (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the strength of consensus needed depends a bit on the severity of the sanctions being discussed. The proposal was an indefinite topic ban with limited exceptions for discussion: "Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development." Consensus for that is debatable (though getting there). But I would suggest that consensus is strong enough to support my more limited version: "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise; perhaps a brave admin is willing to declare it. Otherwise, Arbcom could be asked to pass it as an interim measure or something. PS As part of the discussion about a bot Delta has already said "If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months...", while in the subpage discussion some exceptions for the "no removals" approach were suggested. On both counts, simplicity wins: "no removals" is simple to follow and simple to enforce - and given the vast amounts of collective energy expended on enforcement around these issues, that counts for a lot. Rd232 public ^talk 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except people weren't indicating their support for your version so you can't use their support for a different thing. Delta's proposal, and his offer, is frankly insulting "I'll stop being disruptive if you grant me this exception". That simply cannot fly. Him stopping his disruption can't be based on the community granting him an exception. With that statement he's acknowledging that he knows his behaviour is disruptive and doesn't have full consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, Nothing will ever have full consensus. What I stated was I would stop mass removals for 6 months to see if the talkpage tagging and DaB repair system was effective, if they are not, Ill continue, removal is the most effective method for solving NFC issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Effect simply cannot be measured by how quickly you reduce the amount of non-compliant images, because there is a far more reaching effect to your behaviour. The effectiveness is greatly reduced when you enter into conflicts, piss off users, chase them away from the project, needlessly edit war, and remove some (not all) images from articles that should in fact actually have them. You've had dozens, possibly hundreds of users try to explain this to you over the years.Nowhere does it indicate in NFCC that you must do those things. Those actions are entirely your own choice.--Crossmr (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"so you can't use their support for a different thing" - yes, a completely different thing, apples and oranges. No wait, they're both fruit, that's too similar. Moondust and crocodile clips? No, they're both physical objects. Frogs and fridays? Well anyway, completely different. There's just no way that a near-consensus for a fairly complete indefinite topic ban could be translated by way of compromise into consensus for a lesser, time-limited topic ban that enables productive solutions to be explored. No way. So, best do nothing, as usual. (Heck, in this case, if Delta's bot happens and he puts mass removals on hold, it may not work out too badly.) Rd232 public ^talk 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, though I didn't say so in the community ban proposal, I think Rd232's proposal in conjunction with Beta's proposal is entirely acceptable as far as I am concerned. It was extremely healthy for Rd232, as someone else who wasn't otherwise closely involved, to propose alternate solutions that might have more community support. It would take a very bold uninvolved admin to close and enact that under the circumstances, but perhaps such does exist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr states that the proposal was "constantly disrupted" yet still wants the ban to be enacted. ? With respect, doesn't make sense. I noted before in that debate, and will repeat here; if you want to enact a ban on Δ, then start an RfC where evidence can actually be laid out, responded to, and considered in a fair and equitable way. This scattering across multiple boards, with closings/unclosings, etc. isn't yielding a proper process to cause someone to be banned for anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because despite the disruption there is still clear support for it. Delta discussions generally generate huge amounts of respondents, except when people do things like that have been done here. If people thought it was going to take 70 or 80 people to make the decisions, they really shouldn't have done what they did, however we still have a very clear majority. I've twice posted several incidents of Delta inappropriately responding to users and causing conflict with his behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of his on-going issues when handling NFCC disputes.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you see what you're saying? Despite the disruption? Do you not see that the disruption has made the discussion completely invalid? Last I bothered to check, there was a clear majority to remove one of his restrictions. Should we apply that too? The best bet for your own sake if you want his head on a pike is to start an RfC. That will carry clear validity if it holds to uphold the additional sanctions you keep begging for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• An RfC is pointless. The years of discussion we've had has been an RfC. An RfC is a non-binding process that drags on for months and means nothing. Last I checked there is no support remove any restrictions. There was support to grant an exception for a specific task, that isn't remotely the same thing. The proposal was supported before it was moved to the sub-page, the majority wasn't as big, but it still existed.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note about User: Δ / Betacommand

I've resolved the latest conversations as no consensus and we keep in place community sanctions. I'm quite tired of hearing "we ignore them" or "this user gets away with (fill in the blank)".

No matter who the user is, if they are under ArbCom or community sanctions and edit in a way that violates the ruling, administrators need to uphold the ruling and block if need be, or no block at all/unblock if the situation is outside the scope. We have community sanctions for a reason. Keegan (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm not neutral in the whole affair, but for gods sake, can we please not say or do anything related to Delta at this or any other noticeboard until the ArbCom Motion is over. I don't care if he sets the server farms in Tampa on fire, keep it off of every other page and take it to the ArbCom motion page. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Svan (and I'm not neutral in the whole affair either). Let's let the ArbCom ruling continue and see what happens of it. Short of appealing to Jimbo himself, this matter is already at WP's Supreme Court. Additional discussion here is pointless. Buffs (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughs ...Svan? Err... alrighty then. I don't know why that's hilarious, but it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the topic-ban discussion isn't marked as resolved. Keegan, was your intent to do so? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was, but since he hasn't specified, I closed it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz is intentionally interrupting an article and edit warring. We should expect more from admins. I am requesting that another admin gives him some nice advice.

• [revert of something agreed upon after discussion (note edited diff)
• malicious edit after a barb from another editor
• revert

Current talk page discussion: NONE (Isn't more expected from an admin)

Previous talk page discussion: [1] (The whole issue stems from presenting something graphic in both a positive and negative light, bringing in hair color is a red herring that is only there to cause disruption and make a point. But he didn;t even bother to look at the discussion it looks like since he did not use the talk page)

Notification of bad form with a request to stop: [2]

Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, on June 16 I fixed the caption. I fixed it again tonight. Cptnono's knickers are in a knot because (a) there is no Talk page consensus for the caption he likes, and (b) "unsmiling" in a caption is as meaningful as "brown-haired" or "black-haired". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wear boxers. But you again have demonstrated that you are not suitable as an admin.

I assume that you started playing with the article since you have want to rock the I/P boat. Why now are you starting trouble and not months ago when consensus was formed (have you looked at the archives yet?). But my last message to you says it all.[3] Stop starting trouble over stupid stuff and consider giving up the mop if you turn this into an ongoing concern. But yes: "Whatever" until you do it again.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I usually give Cptnono more credit, but tonight he's off his game. His first diff isn't mine. This was my edit on June 16. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• [4] And another revert even though a talk page link was provided. Request a block to prevent disruption and a return to the stable version that had consensus. Malik has responded twice with WhateverWhatever

I will be reverting after 24hrs just to stay on the right side of 3/rr even though it is clearly malicious. Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing malicious. You have yet to show the alleged Talk-page consensus for the word "unsmiling" in the caption (hint: there is none). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the archived discussion up above. Then self revert. The apologize for intentionally disrupting the article and edit warring. Even if there was not consensus (which there was) you are not acting like an admin and it is time you self revert. Then you should be stripped of the mop if this is how you conduct yourself. Note that I am not an admin since I tend to enjoy watching people squirm in situations like this. Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Neither of the words are in the caption. It's ONE word, which has almost no meaning in the article. You could say that it was a woman with fingernails and it would have about the same use as brown hair, or unsmiling. Grow up, both of you. Pilif12p 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I'm not a fan of belaboring the obvious. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up isn't the issues (and if it is then certainly he should not be trusted to eb an admin). If you see the archived discussion you see that "unsmiling" was added specifically to add a balance to the article so that it did not look like porn. Finger nails and hair color have nothing to do with it. Carefully using images is. Malik has intentionally thrown off that consensus that was hard to reach. Is he allowed to edit war? So if MS is allowed to the I will revert again. Any objections?Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. I have to agree with Cptnono at this point, anybody, especially admins shouldn't be allowed to do this. I read over the talk archive, and it did seem like there was a consensus to change it to his wording. *clears history* Pilif12p 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, pure and simple vandalism from an admin and he will get away with it. AGF is dead. I will be reverting in 24/hrs even though I should do it now (I don't trust the admins and it is a shame when an established editor cannot)Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But mark this as resolved. I will be continuing the edit war the admin started in 24hrs.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about both of you stop editing the article for a couple of days and talk it out on the talk page? Seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. There was a talk page discussion. MS has intentionally edit warred AND left the article with a POINTY edit. If an admin can do it I can. And if admins do not see the problem with him then I will do it for them. How about YOU actually make a judgement? And just to be clear: I am pissed because IPs add things like "nigger" to the article and I have been holding the fort down. When an admin choses to spit in my face I am going to be pissed. Lok at the article and the caption then tell me he should be editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) This looks like a pretty dumb edit war, but I do not see egregious conduct on either side. This edit (and the followups) by Malik do seem rather pointy but I would not call it vandalism, and based on the above comment I don't think he'll be adding it again. A block or Malik losing adminship do not seem to me to be appropriate responses to this situation.

Really you should both be using the talk page, as GWH said. In December three editors, including Cptnono, agreed on the "unsmiling" language, but of course consensus can change. Go talk about it or else just let it alone, since this is an incredibly trivial issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Bringing the smartest people in the world together so they can argue about cumshots. What a place.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • If this continues it will come close to if not outright win the lamest edit war of the year so far award. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the humor is not lost on me over this. It is a shame that people see it as a joke. Whatever: more donkey punching and less editing constructively. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really sure how to interpret your last sentence Cptnono, but please don't take the fact that no one is rushing to block or de-admin Malik as justification for you to "be as disruptive as (him) now". Malik should not have made the initial pointy edit to begin with and neither of you should have revert warred. You should talk about it on the talk page, or one or both of you can give up and leave it alone. This is a pretty minor dust-up and I don't want to see you bothered by it to the point that you actively decide to be disruptive, since that won't be good for anyone. If it helps try stepping back for a bit and then coming back to this tomorrow or the next day. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry for not being clear: Donkey punch as an image that is either terrible or hilarious depending on your disposition. But I am stepping away for at least a day since it is time for bed. But I am reverting after 24. But I do realize that MS will not be desysopped. I am almost surprised he was not blocked but I m even more surprised that he was not even given a talking to. This was pointless and now we know that admins really can do whatever they want because the community just doesn't care. You will block an IP vandal but not an admin. And editors like me obviously fall in between. Toothless .Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to want a punitive block, but we don't do that here. Neither of you are edit warring right now, and Malik's comment above suggested he's not even interested in adding his version back but rather would be happy if neither of your versions were there and we just described her as a woman. Block are preventive, and there is just nothing to prevent here. I would agree with you that admins, unfortunately, get away with bad behavior that non-admin editors would not and that this happens far too frequently. But as I said to begin with the editing behavior here, while far from stellar, was not egregious. Saying "knock it off, talk about this instead of edit warring" seems like the right action for an involved admin to take. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Repeated promises to revert after 24 hours? Not good. 3RR isn't a personal allowance of three reverts per day; it's a bright line. Continuing to revert rather than discuss (or proceed to dispute resolution or whatever) would be editwarring. Article content should not be decided by whoever hits the revert button most (or whoever has the most careful timing of their reverts). bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whatever mistakes were made here, how is there any suggestion of vandalism anyway? Do we need to point out as WP:Vandalism says, vandalism is not all bad edits to an article? If you're going to ask for blocks, you really should be aware of that already (as well as blocks not being punitive and 3RR not being a right) Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not about to edit this page from my current location, just to be on the safe side, but the best solution here would be for someone to full-protect and demand that the participants in this silly little slapfight actually talk it over instead of poking one another with sticks and admin noticeboards. Anyone? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. Protected for a week, if only to save Cptnono from being blocked the moment he tries to game the 24h bright line. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So why is MS allowed to edit war and I am not? He has edited against the previous consensus and now the article is protected. There is nothing to talk about since we had consensus. When consensus changes then the caption should be reduced. Until then you have just awarded a editor for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if it wasn't vandalism it was certainly pointy and malicious. If you want to play word games then fine but that does not change the fact that MS intentionally disrupted the article to make a point. So how do you defend him now?Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending anyone. However, protection is the usual response to a continuing edit war, especially when one editor declares their intent to carry on doing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not word games. If you're going to come to ANI asking for administrative action against another editor, it's resonable for people to expect you to know what you are describing (as well as when and why blocks are actually used). It's also resonable to expect people to read the ANI discussion that follows, I haven't see anyone defending MS even if they agree with his POV. (Although describing his pointy editing as malicious seems a little far, it looks more like a silly and unacceptable attempt at a bit of fun.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm asking for help to convince the user Dzlinker (a SP of Omar2788 [5] according to Fr.Wiki [6], this account started to edits on WP on July 27th while the main account was blocked) to stop his disruptive editings:

- Removing a sourced information on the article Fossatum Africae, until I quoted the entire sentence, while a Ctrl+F on the PDF file used as source would give him a result: [7].

- Article Maghreb people: Adding a template which is wider than the article itself [8] and refusing any further edits [9]. The same problem occured on the article Berber people a few weeks ago [10].

Also, some "aggressive comments" should not be tolerated: [11] [12] nor the use of a Pro-Nazi template on his Userpage [13] (in the beginning the template was looking like that : [14].

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. GiantSnowman 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's true this is another account of mine that i abandoned lately (not to bypass a block on the en.WP)

i've been blocked on the fr.WP so i totally abandoned that account (i kept the commons and meta ones)

Article Maghreb people: the guy refused any constructive talk about the infobox, and deleted every thing i wrote, it was really a hard work to do; as any one can see here, the width is totally acceptable, and the infobox is totally representative of the maghreb people, and this accusations 'disruptive editings is totally unacceptable. any one could verify my edits and be sure that they are constructive.

the source he provided on Fossatum Africae is useless in that case i asked him for another more complete and he kept reverting without consensus, trying to impose his PoV as he always do like on the article maghreb people where he refused any talk.

This guy is really not a wikipedian, since his principal edits are political and symbolic such as inserting: french algeria, french morcco instead of algeria and morocco, into biographical articles (so not historical) and refused talking on this page here. here are some of those unacceptable and undiscussed edits: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and many others.

He says that algeria was internationaly recognized to be french. but this statut is dead, an article written in the early 20th or late 19th centry who says that would be acceptable. but today its totally false and confusing with the Algérie française (fr:french Algeria) slogan.

for the berber people article, as any one could see here i'm one of the editors who've edited the most on the article (then i was editing as User:Omar2788). and this discussion about the infobox images prove my good willing in that.

Also the accusations of my agressif comments are really too much saying. any one would agree that if a wikipedian work, is to spy over other ones edits continually every day to revert them or ..

no one could support it.

not talking about this same attitude he got when i was editing on the fr.WP. (he is like chasing my edits every where), i really don't support that

no one could support it.

Omar2788 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks:

- Putting "Algeria" instead of "French Algeria" is PoV. Whatever the Algerian PoV, it was internationally recognised that Algeria was part of France (departements like Corsica or Alpes-Maritimes), not a colony, people born there should, imho, be considered as "Born in France" (as Staline was born in the Tiflis governorate of the Russian Empire, not in Georgia), but since this is my opinion but that the consensual use is to put "French Algeria" instead of "france", I accept that, while some people seem to not be able to accept that their PoV isn't accepted bu others. This was an example, and I don't think that nationalistic PoV has its place on WP.

- You edited the article Berber people 34 times (as Omar2788), but you forgot to tell us that 30 of these edits were reverted by 6 different users because they were against consensus?

I have nothing more to say about that.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again unfounded and unproved accusations

take a look to the Talk page of the concerned article, you'll see if any conflictual edit h'v been made without consensus.

putting french .. instead of Algeria is YOUR point of view, just keep things as they were before your symbolic Uncyclopedic edits (it was Algeria in all the concerned articles before you come by)

why making those changes massively one after another if your intentions were good??

Dzlinker (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.162.171.210 is using the current events portal to push right-wing propaganda about Obama causing U.S. "bankruptcy".[27] I deleted their addition[28] since it was redundant to a neutral version of the story that was already listed for today and I was called a "communitst hard liner"[29] and then accused of "pushing a political agrenda".[30] I gave up on reverting them. If someone else could take a look, it would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually it appears to me that you are involved in an edit war--S-d n r (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't forgive the WP:NPA by the IP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anon ip does not appear to apply, the ip user has several hundred wiki additions. Also, the comments appear to be generally directed not personally directed at Kaldari--S-d n r (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I removed his news post that "United States bankruptcy will occur on July 22" with the explanation that it was not reflected in the source, he wrote that "it does indeed reflect the source since all but communitst hard liners heard one and only one thing in his speech 'I do not have a deal'". Clearly his comment is a direct response to mine and directed towards me. And since when is an anon IP not an anon IP because they have an edit history? They are still editing under and anonymous IP address. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit histories of User:S-d n r and User:70.162.171.210 look surprisingly similar to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that myself. In any case, I have blocked .210 for continuing to edit war on that page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the same user, will blocking the IP also block the registered user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the IP technically violated 3RR, FWIW. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring need not technically violate 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by that argument I should be blocked as well. My complaints were about the POV-pushing and personal attack, not the short-lived edit war. I would prefer the IP to be unblocked and given a warning about the issues instead. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he hops right back in when the block expires to predict the US defaulting on its debt. Blocked 1 week for vandalism this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and sockpuppet abuse

Here's the smoking gun. The article Henry Feffer was created by User:S-d n r at 14:17 and then edited by User:70.162.171.210 1 minute later. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that sdnr's edits also came to a screeching halt after the IP was blocked. However, is this truly sockpuppetry? That is, did he use both ID's to evade something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sockpuppet abuse examples (besides the discussion above):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_United_States&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Haines&action=history

In both cases, the registered user edit warred on behalf of the anon IP. I don't have time to dig further, but this seems blockable to me, especially since Sdnr was actively deceptive above.[31] Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith - if a new editor makes an edit without realizing a "logged out" status - that also results in the IP being shown as the editor. IMHO, unless there is a clear effort to deceive, or a second named accunt is used, I would chalk it up to "editting while logged out" which happens to almost everyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person is certainly not a new editor. The IP address has a couple thousand edits and the registered user has a few hundred. Aren't their edits in the discussion above a "clear effort to deceive"? If this isn't an example of sockpuppet abuse, it seems like we have a pretty huge loophole. What's to prevent this user from continuing to edit war under both a registered account and an established anonymous account, thus appearing as two different people? Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a level-three warning on User:S-d n r's page. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't {{Uw-agf-sock}} be more appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sdnr (any clues what that stands for?) has suddenly gone very quiet since the IP was blocked. Maybe a checkuser could discreetly take a look at this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your pick Bugs... Status: Data Not Ready, Screw Down Non-Return, Sockpuppet: Do Not Resuscitate - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably time for an administrator (other than yours truly, who apparently has a personal grudge) to step in. At stake is the insertion of peacockery in the lead. See also a discussion on the talk page, started by User:Pol098, who probably had no idea what they got in to--accusations by SPA editors abound, and I think Pol098 has given up. Your eyes are appreciated, and I'll stick a generic message on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page as there are at least 3 SPAs socking or meatpuppeting on the page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope Pol098 is following this, just so they know they're not alone. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the SPAs edits, it's clear they are only here to pimp that university and as such have been blocked as advertising-only accounts. I've reduced protection to semi. There appear to be a variety of seemingly static IPs from Roadrunner in Orlando that are connected with this exercise. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and I declined a pretty rude unblock request on one of them already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it would be rude was to be expected, given the tone of their other communications. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed this CFD early because of some extensive off-site canvassing, apparently by Shakesomeaction (talk · contribs), the creator of the two categories that were nominated. Screenshots of the off-site posts in question: Screenshot 1, screenshot 2, and screenshot 3 and screenshot 4. A copy of the nomination was posted off-site with the header "Wikipedia doesn't care about Women of Color ... Basically". The off-site canvassing included the comments:

• "Help save the Women of Color categories on Wikipedia"
• "The same nordic asshole has nominated my other entries for deletion"

The canvassing resulted in a number of IP editors casting "keep" votes. I personally feel this off-site behavior is inappropriate for a WP community member, but this issue deserves the community's attention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought there was something goofy about this "voting" process anyway. You get a handful of the hundreds of thousands of editors commenting, and then a decision is made. If every wikipedia editor gave input to everything that was being decided, these external ballot-box-stuffers wouldn't mean anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of those posts is a personal post in my blog, the fourth one. I don't care if you ban me for this issue at all, period. Go ahead. I did not tell any of these people what to say, I only told them how to make a post and how to post keep if they felt the same way as me. People also voiced their opinions on their blogs. I felt like the people gave compelling reasons for keeps, but due to my informing them of how this process works, or even that it's going on, it's considered invalid. So ban me. If that's what your answer is when you read the other side then do it. And frankly, I think I am allowed to have my own personal view on my blog and even post copies of conversations there. No website, unless it's federal and is by law of my country, is going to tell me I can't post a copy of a public conversation and comment on it in my blog. That is all I have to say about this topic, period. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: I realize I did something wrong, so now I'm going to try to simultaneously set myself up as a victim and bully my way out of this situation. Newsflash: Apologizing works a whole lot better. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no I did nothing wrong. Absolutely. I have not set myself as either one of these. I'm not quite sure how I have bullied anyone in this situation and moreover I felt bullied, because several categories that were not connected were nominated by the same person for deletion in a 24 hour period. So your hypothesis is incorrect. I'm not going to apologize for anything. My comment was saying if these are the rules, I don't agree with them, and it is far better to ban me than put up with this because I feel women's history is an important issue. Bullying would be going to the person's page, harrassing them endlessly, messaging them, finding their personal blog and posting it on Wikipedia, telling them that certain issues do not matter because I am unaffected by them... While I personally insulted this person in my own blog, I never made it part of the conversation on Wikipedia, and I certainly did not harass them, nor did I tell ever any other person to. That would be bullying. My issue was the category, and recognizing women of color. And I am not apologizing for the fact that people don't understand that these are issues that a modern research database should include. So, again, if it is appropriate to ban me in the instance, then so be it. Apologize? I have nothing to apologize for, and I don't think anyone else in this situation does either. It's simply a misunderstanding, although some people need to find out much more about the topic of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply I will not fall for those sort of derailing statements. One thing is true of Wikipedia, there will always be someone who cares much more than you do about something, and those people will always get their way. When you figure out which one you are, then call me, otherwise I'm done with this. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you want to be banned from Wikipedia? I'm not clear on what you think would be a proper resolution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it is best to ignore. Otherwise, a blog post will appear with a possibility of a race card being played. Phearson (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe User:Shakesomeaction initially thought they were doing us a favour - we have all these Category:Fooian people and Category:People of Fooian descent, but we don't divide them into males and females. The editor was then pissed off when someone nominated them all for deletion and assumed this was racism/sexism. When someone explained that we had previously had this discussion (probably several times) and decided not to split out a gendered category unless gender was an essential element (ie the category was almost exclusively one gender, and members of the other gender were notable at least partly on the basis of their gender), Shakesomeaction has indicated that they accept this decision (although from the sounds of it they still think it is weird). On that basis, I think the initial reaction should be put down to unfamiliarity with our rules, and no further action be taken. Shakesomeaction is now aware of the previous decision, might like to read up on how it came about, decide whether or not to challenge the consensus using the appropriate community processes, and should also now be mindful that Wikipedia disapproves of external canvassing, so be cautious about how they handle external communication specifically about an on Wikipedia discussion in future (nothing wrong with inviting people to join the community and start editing, everything wrong with a "come and make your feelings known to these racist scum" type comment, in terms of one's future "career" with the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "racist scum" argment. I do not believe anyone in any of these instances were being racists. I do believe people were misuderstanding what the point of having women of ethnicity get their own categories. This was my concern and I never believed anyone in this situation was racist. Also? I am white. Race card? Really mature for someone to say. This wasn't an argument about race for me at all. This was an argument about women's history, and you will see that in any of the past conversations on Wiki about this topic. All those screen shots? They are from different blogs on the internet. Only one of them is from my blog, the last one, and it did not tell anyone to go to the site. I cannot be held responsible for something someone else said, or if someone interpreted this as a racial issue. To me it wasn't. It was a women's history issue --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just checked those screedshots and nowhere did people say the term "racist scum." Again this was not a topic about race, I never called anyone about racism. This is about women's history. To assume that I am making this about race--to make it an easy way of shouldering off a person being hysteric about race--is offensive to me. Also you will see everyone who I informed about this talked about women's history. This was not a race thing, and I'm sorry that any of you have that misunderstanding. This is a rule that should probably change within Wikipedia. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone can let me know how I can nominate a rule change I would be grateful for that. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are most likely looking for the Village Pump. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakesomeaction, do you acknowledge that canvassing is inappropriate behavior, and agree not to resort to canvassing again once the category is re-nominated? --JaGa^talk 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that canvassing is inappropriate, but talking about Wikipedia issues in my own blog is something I'm allowed to do, and Wikipedia cannot tell me what to do concerning that. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. But if you use that blog to knowingly disrupt Wikipedia, your editing privileges at Wikipedia could get restricted. Imagine the person who uses their blog to organize vandalism - for instance, a series of nonsensical page moves. We wouldn't deal with the situation by trying to censor the blog; we'd just block them from editing. Now, you're certainly no vandal, and I doubt you were aware you were violating canvassing policy, so no worries, no block. BUT, if you choose to ignore the policy you are now aware of, and your actions become enough of a problem to be considered disruptive, you could get your editing privileges curtailed. --JaGa^talk 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to shake my head at the thought that someone could get so worked up about a category. I mean, how hard could it be to ask for clarification and getting directed to the appropriate venue of inquiry instead of getting riled and indignant? --Blackmane (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably would have not gotten so worked up if the same person hadn't made it a point to nominate all these categories in such a quick succession. The thing is, some things are important to some people, some things aren't. Obviously it isn't an issue that's important to you, thus you can't surmise why anyone would get upset, but it was important to me. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to re-examine your priorities, then. Some categories on a web site aren't worth this kind of fuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these off-site canvassings strike me as being racist. They definently do not show any understanding of the assume good faith guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to this because of a notice left at the Women's History project. I've asked some questions and made some comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reforming the WP:Cat/gender policy. Shakesomeaction is clearly a, um, spirited person who hasn't quite internalized our courtly etiquette. This might be excusable from a new editor, bur there are things on both sides I don't like here. S. could've argued for the existence of the category as a topic of special encyclopedic interest per WP:Cat gender instead of resorting to accusations of racism and framing the "keep" as a cry for social justice; this, I think, was part of the point made by Elen of the Roads, whose mediating remarks didn't seem to pierce the barricade of Shakesomeaction's self-righteousness. However, those supporting the deletion could've been more constructive in pointing out that despite the clear scholarly notability of "African American women" as a topic of encyclopedic interest, the resulting category might be too diffuse for anything but populating with subcategories. I agree that offsite incivility directed at fellow editors specifically is the same as incivility onsite, and this to me is worse than the canvassing accusation. But I don't think it's helpful to mock Shakesomeaction's passion for representing African American women formally on WP, given the bad press WP gets (justly or not) for its gaps of coverage pertaining to women and low participation by women. Is there a way to address the concerns of both sides in a constructive manner? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused anyone of racism! Even in my own blog on the entry venting on my own I never accused anyone of racism, and I have no idea why people think I did. I never believed anyone here was being racist. Someone suggested, in this very post, that I might play the "race card." I'm a white person! If Wikipedia were racist there would not even be categories for people of any other ethnicity. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think they grasped that I was actually on their side. Never mind. Part of the problem was that the categories they started with were Category:American women of Fooian descent, which is problematic because it is a three way intersection - american, fooian and women, not to mention that in the US descent is a more nebulous and problematic entity. That one of the cats was Category:American women of Mexican-Jewish descent just added to the gaiety of nations. There is definitely a scholarly case for a category that would pick out notable African women (say), but the Women by nationality set should achieve that. The question is - is Gloria Estefan (say) notable because of her Cuban descent? Is there a class of women who are notable because of their Cuban descent. There is certainly a class of women who are partly notable because of their ethnicity (Pocahontas Mary Seacole Bjork) but this is not to say that whole classes of women are notable because of their ancestry. Still, glad to see that debate is now taking place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I felt you were very reasonable and you were the only person that explained things to me in a reasonable way. That actually helped. I agree with what you're saying, and it makes sense. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. Follow dispute resolution. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user Y2Kcrazyjoker4 has been vandalizing the articles related with the English alternative rock band Muse, mainly in the infobox section, at first it reverted any change that weren´t referenced, so i've found references for all the changes, but now, even with references added it keeps undoing my edits, first here [32] alleging that it wasn't referenced, then a reference was aded [33], but it keeps reverting even with reference in it [34] alleging that the source don't is direct enough, but everybody else who reads can get the reference clearly (here is the source: [35]), the user has been invited to discuss it's point of view but don't wants to talk, so their actions falls on vandalism and it must be warned or blocked by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Looking at the Talk page for Muse, I don't see anything like consensus one way or the other. Y2kcrazyjoker4 is on one side of the fence, Carnotaurus044 is on the other. This needs to go through the normal dispute resolution channels first. There's nothing for an admin to do at this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is not the proper place to report incidents like this, nor is great form to ask the admins to block someone when a user is reverting disruptive editing. FYI, Carnotaurus044 has been focusing nearly 100% of their editing in the last month on changing the genres of Muse articles. All of these edits were being done without references, and only after I asked for reliable sources to be added did he start providing references in his edits. Some of them, however, are based on flimsy interpretations and don't support the material he was adding to the articles. I'll spare this board any further details, as this is not the proper forum for these disagreements. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what to make of this new user. He has only made 3 edits. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peterpapadakis His first edit involved adding a death date on an article with the name Petros Papadakis. Wouldn't normally be too concerned. But the death date was in the future! Any ideas on how best to communicate with him. I don't think that it qualifies as a death threat. But it isn't a polite thing to do.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Continue reverting. If it goes beyond 3 reverts, contact WP:AN/EW. Phearson (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR doesn't apply to BLP violations, and an unsourced date of death (future or not) is a BLP violation. It's an especially absurd violation but still. --NellieBly (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them a stern warning[36]earlier. But they have not edited since the OP above reverted their 3rd edit, so we'll see what happens. Heiro 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was worried that this could be either a suicide note or a death threat and that we'd need to get the police involved, but on examining the article I see the supposed death date is more than a year in the future. It's hard to imagine anything real being planned that far in advance, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the page in case anything else turns up. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 07:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above article was deleted today. See here. Shortly after, a newly registered user, User:Dolphin s54, created SuperKombat World Grand Prix 2. Dolphin also linked to the newly created article. See, for example, this diff. Notice that he kept the original "II", even though he links to the newly created article with the "2".

I initially thought of requesting a speedy delete of the newly created article, but because it also involves editor behavior, I decided to come here.

My request is to delete the article as a salt and to take whatever action is appropriate with respect to Dolphin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it WP:CSD G4, as for the editor, I think at most they should get a warning about recreating content deleted after a deletion discussion. And maybe a check to see if they are a sock. Monty₈₄₅ 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a sock check. I don't want to get into this too deeply, but there are many kickboxing-related articles and particularly Romanian kickboxing articles that have been nominated for deletion. Many of the deletion discussions have unfortunately focused on Romanian kickboxing enthusiasts accusing editors (like me) of various vaguely defined biases. It has regrettably transformed the discussions into unconstructive fights. Some of the kickboxing proponents are more deft in their accusations. Others just get wild and rant. I'm not sure which is worse. Anyway, all this is to say that there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes here than a naive newbie violating policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP is being used as a results service for Romanian kickboxing. Mtking (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted as G4 - would also suggest a sock check. Skier Dude (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, this is the related SPI. Monty₈₄₅ 02:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin has been blocked as a sock puppet of Cyperuspapyrus. What happens to Cyperuspapyrus?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I block him for a week for using a sock to re-create a deleted article :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor (or editors) has inserted what appear may be promotional or self-promotional entries regarding a certain "Ivan Taslimson" (no wikipedia article) into various articles such as . . . Permaculture, List of University of Washington people, List of Indonesian Americans, List of people from Nevada, Organic architecture, List of people from San Jose, California, List of people from Seattle, and Hakka people. Source IPs include: 223.255.229.13 [37], 202.138.246.2 [38], 180.214.233.18 [39], 206.53.152.32 [40], 180.214.233.24 [41], 223.255.229.13 [42], 206.53.152.22 [43], and 206.53.152.28 [44]. A varied set of IPs, so in spite of the very similar edits, they could very well be different individuals.

However, not long after I removed some of these entries from the associated lists due there not being a supporting reference or article, I began seeing some apparently vindictive edit summaries reverting some of my other unrelated edits: [45], [46], and [47]. These were made by IPs 223.255.225.4 and 223.255.226.143, who are likely associated with a single person. I suspect that the user 223.255.229.13 that made the Taslimson entry in the Permaculture article is also the same person. Although not especially bothered by this silliness, I would like to have it stopped (or at least looked into) before it becomes more disruptive. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certain photos he has taken are high-resolution and seem to be taken in an official capacity. Geneva2011 has been especially smart to upload them on commons, where the review process (and even speedy deletion) is much slower and where the user faces less scrutiny. User:Strange Passerby has already started a deletion request on one of them here. The Commons deletion process is one thing, but Geneva2011 insists on reinserting some of his images (or posting new ones) when it is likely he either took them while employed by the government of Singapore, or got them from the government of Singapore without an OTRS ticket.

This is of course, overlooking the fact that the user hasn't declared his conflict of interest by being employed in an official capacity. Evidence to this is the perspectives in which File:VivianBalakrishnan03.jpg and File:VivianBalakrishnan.jpg are taken -- I have commented these out on the Vivian Balakrishnan article. However the user insists the images are his. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Commons is out of scope of the enwp ANI board. Try Commons' own AN. StrPby (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this, but I ask for advice on using these images here, and how aggressive we should be in reverting them or even considering blocks. The ideal outcome is that OTRS tickets get issued and we can use these high-quality images. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI should only be an issue if the edits cause problems with the article i.e. NPOV, self promotion, etc. Googled for the image of this event, and don't see any image that matches it. However, I did find this [[48]] which is similar. Press photographer using unpublished photos? In any case, it would be great if Geneva2011 could just give us some indication on how he owns these photos. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, people being paid to edit Wikipedia cannot at all be neutral, since they have been given instructions on how to edit, and undoubtedly that means in the very least, not writing any genuine (beyond token) criticism of their employer. You only need judge this user's edits for yourself. This editor insisted on taking down user-taken free photographs and replacing them with "official" photos, perhaps intentionally to undermine the project. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You could just as easily argue that people who edit Wikipedia in their free time do so because they have an axe to grind. In some cases this is true, and in some cases it is not.
• Unless there is evidence of wrong-doing, you should assume good faith.
• It is possible that this person is a government employee; or maybe he/she is a press photographer; or maybe he/she is a freelance. You are speculating. We do not know. And if he/she is one of these, why should he/she not upload spare photos instead of deleting them? Why should he/she be compelled to out him/herself?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is policy. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is highly likely that the person is in the employ of the Singaporean government, taken in conjunction with the editing pattern. Furthermore, there is a pattern of suspicious sockpuppetry that I think I will need to ask CheckUser for. There is already evidence of wrongdoing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations after accusations. You seem to have forgotten you have repeatedly abused your tools whenever the edits are not to your liking. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that declaring COI is a guideline, strongly encouraged but not a requirement. Also, under COI is a subheading called defending interests which all parties should really take note of, as I see various degrees of evidence of possible questionable editors from various editors with different views in that and related article especially in the past 2 months, with accusations of vested interests thrown all over the place. That is the big problem here, the picture is just a symptom.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So at this discussion, Dekkappai (talk · contribs) tossed off this rant:

“

If I might be permitted a minor digression by way of illustration of the problem articles on non-notable subjects like this pose Wikipedia: Not long ago I had to start articles on several Rimsky-Korsakov operas. Now, I don't need to tell you, Rimsky-Korsakov's operas are the crowning achievement of the oeuvre of this Russian master, yet we had no articles on them until I started these pathetic stubs. What did we have instead? Articles on these fucking country clowns! It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. No, gentlemen. We should all be working towards improving Wikipedia's reputation, not dragging it down into the mud and the gutter with some whiskey-soaked shit-kickers singing about beating their wives and they're so lonesome since their dogs ran away, and oh, how great the U.S. of A is, and all that drivel. I realise this is the project for the deletion of images, but someone really should bring this problem to the attention of the appropriate project for the deletion of articles. For the good of Wikipedia, please delete this aural excrement. They're all potential BLP violations anyway.

”

I think that this is a stealth attack at editors such as I who are into country music, making baseless stereotypes like "dogs ran away" and referring to the genre's singers as "fucking country clowns" and "aural excrement" — the whole thing reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, since he's just bitching about how he hates country and derailing an overall decent thread. Looking at the posts on his talk page, he also got yelled at two other times for WP:POINT attacks — including another filibuster at this AFD where he tells other editors ("We welcome you with open arms if you come here looking for articles on some things, but not this. Why? Because we like some things, but not others. If you boo-hoo that Wikipedia is "not censored", we are forced by policy to agree. But we do have Notability and other guidelines which allow us to remove things we don't like. You got a problem with that? FLIP OFF!") He has also ranted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paula_Rosenthal, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinky_(pornographic_actress) and elsewhere — literally nothing but ranting at AFD and fora since April at least. He's clearly got an axe to grind, and someone should put an end to his detrimental editing and ranting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was drawn to this entry by the amusing rant quoted above. Dekkapai obviously has behavioural problems but I didn't find any evidence that his/her incivility is directed at anyone in particular in the discussions linked above. It seems that s/he has problems with Wikipedia in general and uses these discussions to vent them out. Maybe an admin might consider topic banning Dekkapai from XFDs since s/he has already been warned about this pattern of incivility some 20 days ago and again some 10 days later? Timbouctou (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So long as the rants aren't having a negative effect on the discussions (by derailing them, or dissuading people from contributing) then they're mostly harmless. This one was quite rightly redacted on the talk page in question because, well, it's no less offensive to use negative stereotypes of country music artists in our discussions than it is to use any other negative stereotype. If that keeps happening we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still, seems to be a lot of drama surrounding someone who supposedly is semi-retired. However, my answer to all such rants is the same. The answer to this problem is to let the fanboys have their "cruft" (as long as it's "verifiable" cruft) and go write more "useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, it strikes me as slightly ironic for an apparent opera lover to be criticizing the words of country songs for their banality - I wonder if he's ever listened to the actual words of any operas? (I remember one I once saw had a segment of 10 minutes or so of lots of people singing about what a fine hat someone was wearing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • If there were a strict separation between "cruft" and "useful stuff" then so be it, but it's often not that clear. It would be nice if we treated The Lord of the Rings as a seminal fictional work and concentrated on its tremendous impact on the fantasy genre, rather than on whether or not there really were Elves at the Battle of Helm's Deep, for instance. Cruftism colours one's view of what we should be about, and can taint articles on pretty much any subject if left unchecked. As for {{semi-retired}}, nothing screams "came for the content, stayed for the dramaz" more loudly in my experience. But still, unless this is actively interfering with XfD (and it would need to be cranked up with a few notches to do so) then there's nothing to do here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we could always move {{retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff}} and {{semi-retired}} to {{storm-off-in-a-huff-but-stand-at-the-sidewalk-and-scream}}. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekkappai's a disgruntled editor who's been riding the same hobbyhorse for at least four years; he doesn't accept WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NFCC, and reacted rather strongly when discussions involving his favorite subjects, pornography and erotica, especially involving the Japanese industry, turned against him. He used to cry censorship at the drop of a hat[49], but that wore out its welcome, and he became quite incensed over an extended dispute (involving me) over whether advertising copy from a porn vendor's website was a reliable source for a BLP. After a few blocks for incivility, and attempts to provoke more[50], he's "semi-retired" to a career of facetiously disrupting discussions, especially if I'm involved, as here. I'm sure he'll manage to cross the line into blockability again, but he's mostly trolling to see who he can get to take the bait on any given day. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious troll is obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AN#Help request: Diacritics in surnames
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis

It seems that Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone back to his old ways. Therefore I propose a complete ban on Dolovis moving articles. He may request moves of articles via WP:RM, and should consensus be gained an uninvolved editor may make the move. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that Dolovis is in fact making page moves in accordance with policy (see WP:COMMONNAME). There is currently a RfC, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, which is discussing this matter and, at only 50% support, it does not look like it will get a consensus. Although it's obviously sub-optimal that Dolovis is editing the redirects so that only admins can move over the titles, those moves are clearly controversial and should therefore go through WP:RM anyway. Again, Dolovis is acting in accordance with the policy as it is currently written. Also, the proposal makes it sound as if Dolovis is regularly moving article en masse, when he/she has in fact only made four moves in the last two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Dolovis seems to have an extreme view on the diacritic issue, and enforces his view by deliberately creating redirects from names with diacritics in two edits: [51][52][53]. This prevents anyone from moving the page under that title. He's also systematically creating articles under names without diacritics, even in cases where the sources do use them (eg. Juha-Pekka Pietila, Eero Vare). It's certainly not clear to me how that is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:COMMONNAME is not very explicit (to say the least) about discritics. The only mention is "canon" vs. "cañon" (for "canyon"). I can't see what bearing that has to personal names. In fact, the current guideline is to neither encourage nor discourage diacritics in personal names.

  Lacking clear direction in WP:COMMONNAME, WP:HOCKEY is the place to look for guidance (when it comes to hockey players).

  Dolovis' previous behavior indicates that he is more or less begging for a page move ban. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the RFC and WP:COMMONNAME are really relevant here. The RFC is about proper nouns generally and this is a case of proper names of living individuals, where there is an established practice. While you may be right that the letter of said policy fails to reflect this, WP:BURO should apply. It doesn't exactly sound like proper use of a policy page to stretch common names to cover common misspellings (for example, the Journal of Paleontology style guide lists "not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names" among common errors of grammar in English). Anyway, this is a behavioural issue and Dolovis's policy interpretation is no justification for his highly disruptive editing pattern. The user has been given more than a fair number of chances to change his behaviour, but once the AN/I threads get archived, the gaming of the system continues. Prolog (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the non-accented names are permissable or not, deliberately creating edit histories at the accented titles is an act of bad faith designed to give Dolovis a "competitive edge" in that his edits can't easily be undone by non-administrators. If that happens again it appears that a number of administrators are willing to indefinitely block him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 3 cases mentioned above, I have just deleted the history, and restored the second versions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also do the same thing for Juha-Pekka Pietilä? HeyMid (contribs) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 28bytes (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised to read all of that after my simple notice. Please note: After reading the opening of the answer to my notice (please read) i've no more doubts in considering the bad faith... Thousands of articles with diacritics created years before my registration are my personal POV, of course... No comment, simply I consider it as a personal offense. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. In my experience, Dolovis consistently displays a battleground mentality when challenged, and as noted, is willing to game the system if he believes it will give him an advantage in a dispute. I stated last time that this editor will continue to make repeated appearances at ANI, and it is clear that his page move campaign is being considered disruptive by a consistently increasing number of editors. It behooves us to put an end to this behaviour. Resolute 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dolovis has repeatedly been told to stop moving titles of player pages with diacritics to ones without diacritics (or using titles without diacritics when creating the pages). Dolovis' defense is that he is acting in accordance with WP:AT (specifically WP:COMMONNAME), however he does not mention the WP:HOCKEY#Wikiproject notice compromise, which states that "All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required)". Dolovis has also repeatedly made "mistakes" and gamed the system by creating two revisions in the redirects to prevent non-admins from being able to move the articles. The diacritics issues with this user dates back to at least May this year. These issues with Dolovis have been brought up at AN and ANI a lot of times during the past few weeks. Enough is enough. HeyMid (contribs) 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If I've understood correctly, this proposal does not prevent Dolovis from creating player articles with non-diacritics titles. Should we also prevent Dolovis from creating player articles with non-diacritics titles? Or is the purpose in that case that, if another user moves an article with a non-diacritics title to a diacritics one, Dolovis isn't allowed to move that article (back) without seeking consensus? HeyMid (contribs) 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it would be reasonable at this point to prevent Dolovis from creating articles, provided that the subjects comply with WP:BIO. His latest creations could appear to be a deliberate 'first move' to occupy the 'English' (read non-diacritics) namespace of borderline notables, and his concomitant creation and re-editing of redirect seems designed to reinforce that strategic high ground. This proposed page move ban is meant as a seriuz warning [sic] to desist now that his game plan has been exposed. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to move any page that has been moved to another namespace he disapproves of. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Dolvis has long history of conflict around page moves relating to diacritical marks. The comment above regarding a battleground mentality is highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Resolute is right on the money with his comments. His continued battleground mentality makes it hard for editors to work in a collaborative environment. He continues to try and game the system by creating redirects in two separate edits to prevent other editors from moving articles away from his preferred spelling. As Resolute said, he is being brought here by increasing numbers of different editors. There is a point where we have to say enough is enough he is causing too much disruption. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The fact that Dolovis' editing habits have been brought to ANI multiple times by multiple editors in itself is validity that he should receive such a ban. It is clear that this user has no intention of stopping his disruptive actions, and if this isn't dealt with now, someone else will ultimately bring the issue back to ANI is another few weeks. His recent behaviour of gaming the system is blatant disruptive editing, and this user is by far the most unresponsive editor to discussion I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has a standardized response to every question asked of him, suggesting he is following WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME, despite the fact that neither of these pages has substantively come to a decision on diacritics. Even when shown he is wrong, or misinformed, he either ignores the comment, shuts down a conversation, or again refers to AT or COMMONNAME. It is beyond my explanation how this user has been able to continue making such disruptive edits to Wikipedia for so long. He will undoubtedly come here as assert that the same "pro-diacritic" editors are ganging up on him, completely ignoring the fact that this is about disruptive editing, not diacritics. A page move ban was warranted months ago. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This user learned absolutely nothing from his previous appearance here. In fact, he could be deserving a total block, as he seems to constantly be in search of other ways to rid wikipedia of diacritics, e.g. entering the player name without diacritics in the third parameter to the hockeydb template, rationalising it with the fact that the Internet Hockey Database does not have diacritics. That is not the purpose of the third parameter – it is (mainly) used to lose the disambiguator. Also, a page move ban alone would not prevent him from gaming the system by editing redirects. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is something which can be kept an eye on. Dolovis is already on a lvl 4 warning for disruptive editing. Now, where's the key to my banhammer case... Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Resolute. Plus all the drama, gaming the system, &c. (And also attempting to sneak in a policy change against consensus) bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - After reading this page and this oter... Per Prolog: gaming the system. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an eight-to-nothing majority for at least a page move ban. When can it be applied? Do we have to wait for a specific amount of time before applying the ban? Is anyone of the editors in support above an admin?

Dolovis has stopped editing for almost 8 hours now. This was his tactics the last time he was here; he had stopped editing, so there was no point in blocking him. Which made it all fade away as the page was archived. Let's not make the same mistake again. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry generally things like this wait long enough to give a good cross section of people a chance to comment. Most likely if anything is decided it won't be till tomorrow. Be patient. There are alot of people watching him now and the more this happens the more people he will have watching him so either his editing practice will change (this is my hope) or he will end up banned or something. So just sit tight. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When? Generally this type of discussion should be open for at least 24h, to give people across all time zones a reasonable chance to comment. Any restriction will need to be logged at WP:RESTRICT, just so that there can be no claim of "what page move ban?". Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After that 3 recent cases (moved by admins), there are lots of other pages having a redirect with diacritics with 2 edits: Jiri Hunkes vs Jiří Hunkes; Rastislav Spirko vs Rastislav Špirko; Pentti Noyranen vs Pentti Nöyränen; Tomas Sturala vs Tomáš Štůrala; Jakub Sedlacek vs Jakub Sedlaček; Antonin Boruta vs Antonín Bořuta; Peter Sivak vs Péter Sivák; Jiri Ondracek vs Jiří Ondráček; Pavel Kubis vs Pavel Kubiš; Bedrich Kohler vs Bedrich Köhler; Tomas Sykora vs Tomáš Sýkora; Max Warn vs Max Wärn; Ivan Rachunek vs Ivan Rachůnek; Peter Huzevka vs Peter Húževka; Petr Strapac vs Petr Strapáč; Jan Kana vs Jan Kaňá; Viktor Ujcik vs Viktor Ujčík; Jiri Burger vs Jiří Burger; Roman Malek vs Roman Málek; Petr Horava (ice hockey) vs Petr Hořava (ice hockey); David Ostrizek vs David Ostrižek; Zbynek Hampl vs Zbyněk Hampl etc (i've controlled from today still 28 June but the list is very longer). Some articles that have been created without their redirects with diacritics should be controlled (ex.: Petr Puncochar is Petr Punčochář -www.hokej.cz-, Petr Punčochář does not exists as redir). --Dэя-Бøяg 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a campaign. Are edits like this supposed to create the appearance of an edit history...? bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by Dolovis - The same editors are taking another kick at the can just 2 weeks after the previous proposed move ban discussion ended without a consensus for such a ban. This new proposed move ban is out of whack with the facts, so below I am listing all of my page moves made in the past 3 weeks (all 4 of them) so that reasonable and non-involved editors can look for themselves to determine if these 4 moves, all which conform to wiki-policy), should be considered disruptive. These are the 4 moves made by Dolovis since 27 July 2011:
• moved Dalibor Řezníček to Dalibor Reznicek (moved to article title per as verified by the majority of sources used in the article per WP:AT)
• moved Max Wärn to Max Warn (moved to article title as verified by all of the sources in the article per WP:AT
• moved Roni Ahonen to Rony Ahonen (moved to article title as verified by all of the sources in the article per WP:AT)
• moved Štěpán Koreš to Stepan Kores (moved to article title as verified by the majority of sources used in the article per WP:AT)

My page moves might be compared to User:Djsasso who during that same time has made 3 moves, all to diacritic titles:

• moved Petr Holik to Petr Holík
• moved Tomas Rachunek to Tomáš Rachůnek
• moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey)

or compared to User:Heymid who has made 5 moves during the same period (4 of them to diacritic titles):

• moved Eero Vare to Eero Väre
• moved Janne Karlsson to Janne Karlsson (born 1958)
• moved Juha-Pekka Pietila to Juha-Pekka Pietilä
• moved Timo Lindstrom to Timo Lindström
• moved Toni Kiren to Toni Kirén

or compared to User:HandsomeFella who made 9 moves (6 to diacritic titles):

• moved Ales Sova to Aleš Sova
• moved Antonin Melka to Antonín Melka
• moved Branislav Jankovic to Branislav Jankovič
• moved David Hruska to David Hruška
• moved David Kajinek to David Kajínek
• moved Dmitri Jaškin to Dmitrij Jaškin
• moved Dmitrij Jaskin to Dmitri Jaškin
• moved Lee M.E. Morin to Lee Morin
• ‎moved Scott Kelly to Scott Kelly (astronaut)

If there is going to be a moratorium on page moves it should apply to all editors equally. Dolovis (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider just reading this for the first time, it is clear to me that perhaps you don't understand what the problem is. Everyone above is complaining about how you are trying to remove diacritics from names. If my name was John Pečan, and I was worthy of a Wikipedia article, I would expect it would be under John Pečan, not John Pecan because that would not be my name and would be incorrect. There is no problem in having John Pecan redirect to John Pečan as many people surely would not know how to type the č character, but the article should not be housed at John Pecan.

On to my second point. You are comparing your four questioned page moves with page moves by other editors. None of these editors has removed a diacritic in any of these moves, actually moving many TO locations with diacritics. They are correct per my above paragraph. Your moves are taking articles away from a person's proper name and putting it under a generic search term. This isn't proper. This means I must now vote on the page ban proposal.

• Support CycloneGU (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. If your name is "John Pečan" then your use of that name as the article's title must be verified by the sources used in the article. If your preferred spelling of the name cannot be verified, it should not be used. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Dolovis (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's name is John Pečan and was a hockey player, there would be at least one source saying it (such as a player profile). Since most people writing articles on a computer Web site or in a newspaper would have difficulty with accents (the only one I personally remember how to type is é having used it a bit, but the rest I jumble up; I even copied the č character every time I typed it here), many sources simply will not include those accents in their articles that would qualify for us as sources. If this were a case of John Pecan vs. Jonathan Pecan, there would be something to determine by looking at sources; in an example like mine, diacritics would not be used by sources simply because they are difficult to use, and thus your argument is weightless. If one source says it, it's reasonable to assume it. You can't just change a person's name. CycloneGU (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another outside view. Dolovis, forget about what WP:FOO or WP:BAR says, what other editors are moving or what you think is right. Multiple good faith editors have asked "you" to stop doing something so "you" should simply stop doing it. If you would have done that after the first or second move then we wouldn't be here. This doesn't mean that you can't argue your case but you may need to accept the fact that the answer may be "no". Also, adding to a redirect's history so a move can't be easily moved back is "dirty pool". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, he did ask for reasonable and uninvolved editors. I fit both criteria in this instance. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am involved, as the sponsor of the current RfC on diacritics use. I would also consider Dolovis' behaviour disruptive. He has been brought here on more than one occasion, so he can no longer claim that said page moves by him are uncontroversial. I really have difficult understanding his total about-change – he actually created articles with diacritics back in January, but now seems to want to wipe them off the face of the map. [54] [55] [56]

  Our policies and guidelines are essentially diacritics-tolerant, yet Dolovis is seeking to lawyer his way out of a page move ban with fanciful interpretations or cherry-picked arguments based on one strand in a guideline in a vacuum. In light of said tolerance, tugs of war involving the namespace must be considered edit warring based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the case of the above examples cited by User:DerBorg, most are definitely in violation of project consensus at WP:HOCKEY. It has already been noted above that his moves are performed in a way that they cannot be undone without admin intervention.

  He has not stopped after previous warnings, it seems that his new game is to slow down the pace of execution, perhaps hoping to fly under the radar or avoid sanctions because of the small scale. In the absence of policy or guideline against use of diacritics, such controversial changes should not be permitted. Dolovis knows but refuses to accept this reality; he has shown he cannot control himself, so now he must be restrained. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment concerning User:Ohconfucius: Please note that in the past few hours, even while this discussion is on-going, Ohconfucius has made the following article moves:

• moved David Ostrizek to David Ostrižek (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Jiri Hunkes to Jiří Hunkes (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved moved Rastislav Spirko to Rastislav Špirko (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Petr Horava (ice hockey) to Petr Hořava (ice hockey) (no sources in article verify new title)
• moved Zbynek Hampl to Zbyněk Hampl (no sources in article verify new title)

Does anyone else see the not-so-hidden agenda displayed by some of the editors who support the ban? Dolovis (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your strategy now is to try to deflect attention away from what you're doing and onto someone else? This isn't a thread about their actions in moving pages; this is about your page moves. Further, consensus is heavily against you on this, so address the concerns of myself and everyone else above instead of saying, "Well, everyone else is doing it wrong". CycloneGU (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Dolovis: Editors have said that this isn't about diacritics. If that is true, then moving four article in the past three weeks is not grounds for supporting a page move ban. If, however, this ANI is about diacritics (as many of the above comments imply) then placing restrictions on my ability to move article may serve to WP:BULLY me into capitulating to the POV that, contrary to the policy of WP:EN, non-English letters are preferred for article titles on English Wikipedia. My understanding of this policy is not unique or novel. This issue has been debated to death at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) with no consensus reached that would change the existing policy.

Ohconfucius' statement that I have “not stopped after previous warnings” is a misstatement of the facts. Two weeks ago the issue of article moves was vigorously discussed and no restrictions were placed on my editing (because it was noted that the page moves were made in accordance with policy, see WP:COMMONNAME, and because it was wrong to single out an editor on that issue). My edit history shows only 4 moves in the past 3 weeks – not the sign of an editor who cannot control himself.

I will repeat the facts for emphasis. The three page moves that I made to English letters was made pursuant to policy of WP:AT, WP:EN, and WP:V. In all three cases the sources in the article verify that the English form of the name is the commonly used form. As for the issue of “gaming the system”, I have heard the concerns and I promise to not create redirects (see WP:REDCAT ) using multiple edits. I hope that this will settle the issue. Dolovis (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be established here. Dolovis is to be indefinitely banned from moving pages. Should he need to move a page, then it must be requested at WP:RM. I will inform Dolovis of this decision and log it at WP:RESTRICT. I would suggest that should Dolovis move any page after notification, escalating blocks starting at 48h should be used. Of course, any admin is free to impose a longer or indefinite block at their discretions. Dolovis, other editors have already called for you to face stronger sanctions that this restriction. I suggest that you do not try to game the system further, otherwise I fear that you will be shown the door. The ball is in your court. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Bentogoa (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is currently blocked for 3RR Bentogoa (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has also been disruptive/edit-warred on Bulgarians, Turks of Western Thrace and various user talk pages eg here and here. I posted a response to the IP's edits on Bulgarians on the article Talk page. After the IP (whose location is Amsterdam) was blocked, another IP located in Amsterdam posted this personal attack in reply. Looks almost certain to be the same person. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended block another 24 hours and left a message on the talk page. Second IP received an only warning here. Marking this as completed for now. m.o.p 10:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bit of trash [57] was quickly reverted, but needs to be completely hidden. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More hiddened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

long time warring; legal threat; notified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another legal threat Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a {{uw-nlt}}, but an admin should look at this. My gut instinct says it's a bluff, but WP:NLT is a bright line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first warning, second warning. He knows. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took my (redundant) warning off. He's had more than enough opportunity to learn to play by the rules. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, everybody here types faster than me; perhaps I should use more templates. Anyway, came here to say that I blocked him indef for disruption, including but not only the legal multiple threats, but I see that's old news. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slow news day. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to to other BLP violations, ie this edit, this page has been having a slow edit war since May 24 from about 7 single purpose accounts. Unsourced "allegations of criminal fraud" were made, removed and repeatedly re-added. It also appears that editors at the college have tried to whitewash the article.

Finally after removing them once myself, they have finally been sourced. However they are in the lead and are probably giving undue weight to the matter. A few eyes on the article may be helpful, regards - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material in the article did not appear in the quoted sources. I have cleaned up the article and will watch-list it. Your note on the talk-page was good. --Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of heat, no light.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has nobody yet noticed the paring of this Pic of the Day with the Leroy Petry DYK? I already left a comment on the FPOTD talk page but I think this requires more urgent attention. My sincere hope is this wasn't intentional editorializing. Either way, perhaps we should slide this FPOTD to tomorrow? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ummm...ummm...ummm... Facepalm Uncommonly bad timing to pair those two items up. I can't help but assume good faith that it was entirely coincidental. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Even Freud reportedly once said "sometimes a banana is just a banana". Seeing grand designs or ulterior motive within something that is entirely coincidental is not much of a concern for AN/I, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Maybe so but it's in the best interest of Wikipedia's credibility to swap out the FPOTD. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] In what way does it harm wikipedia's credibility to showcase items on the front page which portray different aspects of war? (Different wars, for what it's worth). Is there any actual reason to remove one item or the other? bobrayner (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've already made clear the reason. Do you not concur that it creates an impression of editorial commentary? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] It creates nothing of the sort except in the minds of those who see conspiracy around every corner. No offense, but seriously, find something else to do. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Beautiful. Leave it as-is. The truth may hurt, but it's still true. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] So you recognize the editorial picture it creates and support its inclusion because you agree with it? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ya think? Keep in mind that veterans have always had trouble finding jobs - after WWI, WWII, Vietnam and also the Gulf conflicts. This is nothing new. Note that Petry has gotten around this problem by staying in the service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid you need to reorient yourself with WP:NPOV. The DYK and FPOTD on the front page do not exist to advance a POV regard of how valid you believe it to be. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wow..... Kudos to TomPointTwo on picking up on that; however, I think it's a point that's going to be lost on most people..... I don't see any issue. Certainly doesn't seem like intentional editorializing (though you could probably investigate this by going through the DYK and FPOTD discussions and seeing if there were common editors pushing for the two). NickCT (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] That would be worth a look, and unless it can be demonstrated that it was done deliberately, taking it out amounts to "censorship", which wikipedia supposedly doesn't do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's only censorship if there is a message to be censored. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Prove that it's a message and not a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I will. I would like to see today's FPOTD swapped with tomorrow though. This is a PR nightmare in the making for Wikipedia. Commonsense dictates we coordinate these things more closly to avoid painting pictures like this. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia already has little public credibility, and panicking and censoring it would only lower that credibility. If you're worried about what Wide Receiver will say, don't - they'll criticize no matter what is done, or not done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unless you can find a reason to suggest it was deliberate, I'd say leave it there. The picture is intended to be uncomfortable, and we can't go around looking for excuses not to show it because it might clash with something else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sometimes a banana is just a banana ... but try to convince someone that that's all it is once they imagine (or are told) it is something else. Anyway, better to leave it now and learn from the lesson. Changing it would only draw attention to the banana and encourage active imaginations. --RA (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. Someone needs to pay more attention to the main page content before it goes public. This Jay Leno-like juxtaposition might make wikipedia look stupid. But pulling back from this, for fear that someone might complain, would make wikipedia look even stupider. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] That's what Main Page/Tomorrow is for. More eyes are always welcome. Modest Genius talk 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] That page wouldn't have picked up this issue, since the DYK in question has only rotated onto the page midway through the UTC day. BencherliteTalk 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Let's just say that "irony" is not entirely a lost art, and WP:LETITGO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I for one find it ironic and not at all offensive. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, which just makes it funnier. There's no need to remove either of the stories - let the ironic juxtaposition stand. Let readers read whatever they like into it. Modest Genius talk 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Speaking for DYK, the item was selected for today based on the (obvious) date relationship. That, and the presence of a photo of sufficient quality made it suitable to be the lead item. POTD was not a consideration in the selection, and I suspect that most of the editors involved in this DYK selection were unaware of the POTD. cmadler (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is pure coincidence. I don't see it as ironic, just an interesting coincidence where two juxtaposed views of wars, spanning many years, hit the front page. It is one of the things that makes Wikipedia awesome, and we should not try to trample on that.--Errant (chat!) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Which editor chose the POTD for today? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Howcheng (talk · contribs) chooses, each and every day (barring accidents). BencherliteTalk 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I left him a message. Maybe he can confirm that this was just a bizarre coincidence. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Uhh... unless Sgt. Petry is on record saying he joined up to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs, there's not even an editorial juxtaposition. The cartoon does not have a pacifist or anti-military POV, but rather criticizes, at most, a certain (i.e. upper) class of civilians. So where's the "PR nightmare?" Also, is this venue the appropriate place for this? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] As to the accusations that it forms unintentional editorial comment? Generally editorial comment sits in reaction to something. If we are going to start seeing editorial messages in random occurences, surely we can just as easily see the File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg image as a commentary on Obama's recent actions extending the war in Afghanistan? The presence of the Leroy Petry DYK just serves as NPOV counterbalance. Of course this kind of theory is mad... that's the point. Once you unmoor yourself from reality and go into seeing conspiracies and subtle editorial in featured content picks, you may as well go the whole hog and infer a wilder conspiracy theory. Call the Department of Fun, you've just found a great new time-wasting game! —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I suspect that it is a coincidence. As a matter of fact I pointed out that if that were the case the appropriate response is great coordination of main page material. That said, with all the gaming of the system I've seen it's easy to note that, while not probable, it's possible it was intentional. Easily. It why I asked. Your snarky, unhelpful comment is noted though, so mission accomplished. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Why? I simply do not see the problem - an interpretation of this as an editorial commentary is stretching the message of the image a long way. Anyone that does so is fairly likely to read the worst into even more obscure coincidences of the sort that happen all the time. This is, I think, the wrong thing to be worried about :) --Errant (chat!) 20:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] You don't see the connection between a political cartoon disparaging the value of awards given to a gravely wounded veteran right below the DYK of the awarding of the MoH to a wounded veteran? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well, I tried to close this, but TomPointTwo seems intent on dragging this through the mud until he gets an answer that satisfies him. Seriously, this is pointless. Trying to draw a connection here is like trying to say Mars actually influences my personality. DYK and POTD are decided by two unrelated projects. Without actual evidence of wrongdoing, this is pretty WP:LAME. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you feel like you have nothing to add, move on. My objection has two parts to it. The first is whether or not this was done on purpose. I'm waiting to hear back from Howchen on how this POTD landed on today. If it's by chance, no big deal. The second part is how to make sure that stupid things like this don't happen in the future. We have two different projects adding material to the front page, not talking to each other. It's a wonder stuff like this doesn't happen more often. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] While your second objection may be valid (though hardly on AN/I), your first one can only qualify as a lack of AGF at best. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Concur. Tom, please drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. This was pointless an hour ago. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Saddhiyama, I don't have a specific editor to whose good faith I find deficient. I do know that Wikipedia gets gamed. The venue doesn't especially matter to me, if the issue gets addressed elsewhere then fine, as long as it's addressed. I know a lot of people think it's funny but a lot of people don't; this sort of thing makes all of us look bad. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Scrambling to censor something, because of what WR might say, makes us look worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] What's being censored? It's only censoring if there's a message to be censored. Otherwise it's due diligence in making sure we don't paint a big target on our face. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Does re-opening a discussion count as a revert? That is 3 by my count. Monty845 21:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] See, gaming the system. I brought up a issue on the admin noticeboard. As of yet no admin has responded to either of the two issues I've raised. Hatting or otherwise unilaterally closing this because you don't like it is not constructive editing. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] What's the administrative issue? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Moving the POTD and getting the DYK and POTD synced. Everything slotted for inclusion on the mainpage is protected. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] As well they should be. So far, admins don't see this as an issue. You're the only one seeing an "issue". Besides, why move the POTD? Why not move the DYK instead? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict × 4)Tom, I do feel like I have something to add: try AGF instead of assuming a conspiracy, and let it go. Your objections have no basis in fact. This doesn't even need to stay open while you wait for Howchen, because either you're going to be satisfied he had no ill intent, or you're still going to ABF and keep this going. If you find evidence of wrongdoing, you could start a new discussion. Keeping this open is pointless and looking more like a WP:BOOMERANG as it continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] For the third time, I completely understand this could have just been happenstance. And for the third time, if that's the case we need to explore swapping out the POTD and making changes to how automated processes add material to the front page to avoid this sort of thing. When those issues are addressed I'll let it go. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I sure hope that was accidental, because the placement of those two images on the Main Page close to each other is terrible. It makes Wikipedia, not to mention the Wikimedia Foundation, look like they are making a mockery of the U.S. Military as a whole. –MuZemike 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't mock the military, it mocks the fat-and-happy civilian warhawks who send the kids off to die for them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Careful, your bias is showing. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I support the military. If that's bias, so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nice after the fact edit. You've been combative, lacking in AGF and thretening with me from the get go. You clearly like the message this layout sends and that's why you're so up in arms about fixing this. Your POV pushing isn't helpful. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are you unaware of what has happened to our brave kids when they've come back from combat in our various wars? Or do you approve of the "screw you" attitude too often taken by the "fat capitalists" satirized in that cartoon? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hm, deja vu. Again, your opinion the above topic is irrelevant and your POV pushing is, still, unhelpful. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Allow me to point out the obvious: WP:CONSENSUS is that this was an ironic error, and nothing more. Now allow me further to ask, very nicely, and one final time, to PLEASE WP:LETITGO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] It it was an accident, fine. That still doesn't answer the need to swap POTD or address the manner in which this material is added to the front page without coordination. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] How are you seeing this as somehow being insulting to the military? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I (and other) have already made clear how this paints a picture of editorialism. You've acknowledged as much yourself with your support the percieved POV. Re-read this subsection. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Of course this is a complete coincidence. The POTD was written four days ago. There's no way I could have known which DYK items were going to appear today back then. And I'm sorry, but why should the POTD be swapped out, and not the DYK entry? howcheng {chat} 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Good to know. So that is to say that the DYK and the POTD have no relationship to each other and genereate content beside each other but in oversight vacuum? The POTD would need to be swapped instead of the DYK because the DYK is news making and date dependent whereas the POTD is neither. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Since Tom is seemingly incapable of dropping this I have issued a 24 hour block--Jac16888 Talk 22:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Good deal, I was about to go to 3RR myself as he reverted a closing attempt four or five successive times. I can't see how this type of thing can be anything but a coincidence. The only time I'd expect such projects to work together on main page content would be for April Fool's Day, if at all. CycloneGU (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I still can't figure out what his objection was. Both the DYK and the POTD were supportive of the military. The POTD is an editorial cartoon, and will still be one whether it's run today, tomorrow, or next week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After being the recipient of some rather uncivil comments by Roscelese the other day,[58], I took the issue to Fastil [59] who warned Roscelese [60] about their behavior. Unfortunately, Roscelese didn’t take the message to heart, because they just recently accused me of something rather repugnant and sickening [61] and undid my attempt at removing the personal attack per WP:NPA [62].

I had originally thought to take this to another board, but after my brief interaction with Roscelese and this users long history of administrative sanctioning for other similar attacks on editors and edit warring in general [63], I would ask that the community take this editors behavior more seriously. Thank you. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user having admitted that he believes women lie about rape all the time, I don't really see how it's a violation of WP:CIVIL to observe that he's removing sourced information that contradicts his view. The user also does not appear to understand that a report is not an administrative sanction, or even that a search result (for a comment, or for a report I filed) is not a report; likewise he fails to mention, in linking to my comment on his talk page, that I said I wouldn't make such a comment again, and indeed I have not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZHurlihee has also attempted to canvass a user with a record of harassing me to join this thread. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at Roscelese's contribs and I only see one outburst of incivility. ZHurlihee, don't exaggerate. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also looked at ZHurlihee's contibutions. Pah, seems a WP:BOOMERANG case. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see one incident of incivility from Roscelese which he/she has already been warned about. I also see a breach of civility by ZHurlihee[64] and some edit warring. Everything else looks like normal discussion. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now the user has followed me to another article in order to revert me. Not looking good here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing is one thing. Hounding is quite another. I'd say this is a prime candidate for WP:WQA. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of new around here, but Againme (talk · contribs) has moved a bunch of pages lately without any discussion. Given that there's an ongoing RFC about using accent marks, is this a problem? Hot Stop (t) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the RFC (and the separate discussion regarding another user, above) still open, I'd say WP:UE still holds. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In doing this I am following current guidelines. And the current discussion is supporting current guidelines. --Againme (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current guideline is to "follow the general usage in English reliable sources" and they generally don't use accent marks for Spanish names. Thus the move of several articles under the reasoning of "Born in Dominican Republic, +accent mark" on your part is invalid. Hot Stop (t) 21:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. Most sources in English do not use accent marks at all. Wikipedia does. Regards. --Againme (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalized Americans often don't retain their accent marks, so this move could be problematic, but otherwise Againme's edits seem to be in line with the standard practice and practically all English style guides. Prolog (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been experiencing problems with an editor who persistently accuses me of these things, while producing no evidence worthy of the name. I took it to Wikiquette Alerts: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Accusations of bias but he has simply continued the abuse there. I really don't see why I should have to put up with it, to be honest, and I think it's about time some of the rules against accusations of bad faith were put into effect. I've tolerated it for too long now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have received this personal attack on my talk page by the user 62.162.182.170:

you are not a macedonian, you have betrayed your country's people you should have removed everything to do with bulgaria you have brought shame iPod yourself and you country. You are no Macedonian. you are a lazy piece of shit gypsy loving greek asshole.

Here is the link of the actual message. Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"iPod yourself"? Is that supposed to mean something? FYI, I reported that jerk to WP:AIV, in case no action is taken here right away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably he meant to say that Macedonians in the days of Alexander the Great were not very good at using electronic equipment. I also loved how he made the same ethnic insults against two users whose ethnic background is exactly the opposite of each other. Well, anyway, they're blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He corrected himself with that Ipod thing. That can be seen in his next edit of the same message. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Judging by User talk:A Macedonian, it looks like they're using a range of IP addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this semi-regular user has been involved in adding negative information to articles about journalists involved in spats with Johann Hari (that they were alcoholics and anti-Semites and so on) and in fluffing the article of Hari and some of his friends. The account was at one time found to be using an IP at the The Independent, Mr. Hari's paper. It was claimed that the account was a Hari acquaintance at The Independent. Hari was suspended for 2 months today because of concerns about all this and because of accusations of plagiarism (which The Indy appears to take slightly more seriously -- slightly -- than Wikipedia). There was a discussion of this at the COI noticeboard that petered out inconclusively [65]. I propose at minimum a topic ban from all journalism and political articles, broadly construed, but really an indef block for this kind of behavior is the right course of action. Guardian article on the suspension [66]. Influential Brit blogger on the allegations related to Wikipedia [67]. The Spectator's Nick Cohen (one of Hari's "opponents") on all this [68]. He hasn't edited lately, but his pattern has been long pauses and bursts of activity all along.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? You want to do a pre-emptive topic ban or block? This is nonsense. As you say, "He hasn't edited lately". From WP:BLOCK:

Blocks should not be used ... where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

The same goes for any other sanction. Toddst1 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? He's been vandalizing BLPs inserting unsourced claims that his real world antagonists are anti-Semites and so on and puffing up his own work, and there's no sanction necessary? That would strike me as preventative of further abuse. How is any of this "preemptive?" It appears this account has been quietly editing with an agenda to defame other people for years here (years in which 2-3 months pauses in editing have been quite common). This should be left open for further discussion. The account has done harm and caused real world distress (if the comments of the targets are accepted at face value) and "nothing to see here, move along" as the first response to my post strikes me as both irresponsible and callous.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been significant recent press coverage alleging that this editor has committed BLP violations of a serious nature, in connection with articles involving rivals. I have not investigated these allegations in any detail, at least not yet, and Toddst1 is quite right that David r has not edited in awhile, but I do not think we can afford to be so instantly dismissive of the concern that has been raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The COI thread seems to have been edited by an IP address from the same ISP used by David R (though it's a big range); this IP address seemed to argue that any talk of sanctions against David R should be put on ice. Other IPs from the same telco seem to have been active, at times, on the same cluster of UK journalist articles. For instance, consider [69] [70] [71] - I expect there are more like that. So, if there's an investigation, it should not be limited to the activities of the David R account alone. bobrayner (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect Toddst1, but have removed the resolved tag for now - this is a fairly high-profile issue and I think it's worth waiting at least a few hours for input from others (not many people in the UK are awake right now), whether it's about external coverage, or activity by other accounts/IPs, or indeed something about David r himself.

Also, since that account has been intermittently active, in the same areas, for several years (and IP addresses before the account started) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the problem has gone away just because that account hasn't edited recently. Sooner or later, the same person can be expected to return to similar articles, with or without this particular account. bobrayner (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person should be community-banned, if for no other reason than that the lack of such a formal signal of disapproval by the community would bring the project into disrepute. Also because of the possibility that he might try to come back. Banning him now is preventative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been violating BLP in a slow, but persistent manner for over two years now. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Courcelles 06:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems like they are intentionally creating unwelcome changes to see if they will stick and not get reverted. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. But what are you looking for from an admin? You haven't reverted their changes, haven't placed a welcome-anon template on their talk page, haven't asked them. You also haven't notified them of this discussion, by the way. If those changes are no improvement, revert them and explain why, and take it up on the IP's talk page. For now, there is nothing here for an admin to do. Regards, Drmies (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary of "Vandalism= Altered it to something objectionable so someone else could delete it" was particularly odd. -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a large enough issue to raise here, but it looks like someone is stalking User:Cretog8 and using multiple accounts to do it:

• Hisabness (talk · contribs) looks like a bad-hand sleeper account that's just been activated to undo Cretog8's edits from the past few days.
• Cretog7 (talk · contribs) is an 'imposter' account that's just been banned.

Could wiser heads than mine have a look? Thanks, LK (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]