Target for Today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has created dozens of categories over the past few days, particularly relating to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the battle thereof. Almost all of these are headed to WP:CFD and there are numerous complaints on his talkpage about this, to no apparent avail. A block on page creation at least might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Mangoe for raising this. While a number of Target for Today's stub articles on Gettsburg have also been merged per discussions here andhere, and he has been the subject of some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Gettysburg_articles, I'm not informed enough to express an opinion on the article side of things. However, his category work as revealed by the growing list of red links on his Talk page speaks for itself, I think. And now, I believe he's taken to essentially recreating deleted categories with slightly altered names, as I stated today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:People_of_Adams_County.2C_Pennsylvania.2C_in_the_American_Civil_War and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Geography_of_Gettysburg.2C_Pennsylvania. This, I think, is the tipping point. He is clearly a knowledgable editor when it comes to Gettysburg and Gettyburg is an extremely important topic: but his trend of category re-creation tips the scales to where his work becomes more detrimental and WP:POINTy, and I support that he blocked from further category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is in fact a duplicate of one he already created. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The editor may have believed that the new category was not an exact duplicate, as the battle itself was an event, while the battlefield is a location. Still a little hair-splitting to my mind. --NellieBly (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had to nominate another big subtree of these categories, and am looking at another, and there are a bunch of other nominations besides. He's quiet at the moment, but there's no reason to think he won't start up again. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a topic ban for Target for Today (talk · contribs) blocking them from the creation of categories/creation of new pages in categoryspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Dealing with the categories created by this user is becoming a bit of a headache. Recently I came across Category:1995 in the Cold War, which when considered can kind of serve as a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in the categories that are being created. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but at least some sort of temporary topic ban on categories may be in order until the user can get the hang of how categories typically work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would definately support some kind of ban on this user. He seems to be going way overboard with category creation. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

► What does Category:1995 in the Cold War have to do with Target for Today, as an entirely different user (User:Hugo999) created that category], which is in a valid tree that predates (00:45, 26 December 2007‎) Target for Today's first edit by years. Target for Today (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I meant Category:1974 in the Cold War. Or was it Category:1947 in the Cold War? Category:1951 in the Cold War? You get the idea... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

►Splitting hairs? -- not in the least as the places are all very different. It appears you are mistaking Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and Adams County, Pennsylvania, with the Gettysburg Battlefield--all three are different geographical areas and have different categories with names that match. That's why there are three sets of categories for subtopics, e.g.;

Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures

Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

which are clearly not the same category. For the same reason it is not the same to have Category:Geography of… orCategory:People of,,, categories for each of the 3 different parent categories. To claim they are the same category (or are the same category as any other category) is not true in any way. And of course (despite the false rationalization against) both

Category:People of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

are by-definition valid subcategories of the trees with the parents

Category:People of Pennsylvania in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city

that will have full populations when all the existing and future articles have been categorized to them. Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked his contributions, and there are a few, a very talk messages from him, so one has to assume that he knows about doing that. Of course, unless there's some setting that prevents it, he should be getting notifications of the fifty-odd updates to his own talk page each time he views a Wikipedia page while he's logged in. It's hard not to conclude that he has decided not to bother with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's good advice and I'll remember it. So let me just say, less dramatically: no, I don't think any action is required for the stub articles, all of which can and should be dealt with easily via Template:Merge or just boldly doing it; AfD has been overused in this case, imo. His categories -- which are often duplicates, empty or nearly so, recreated against community consensus, and time consuming to repeatedly remove -- are a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we are starting to exhaust the possibilities of discussion here, absent contribution from the subject of the report. And that's really where I'm coming from. If he's willing to talk to us, to take direction, to at least communicate, we can work with that. He hasn't been on in several days, so it's also possible he has gone off in a huff. The thing is that if he returns, and ignores all this, and starts recreating this stuff, or picks another subject for the same treatment, we are going to go around this all again; I think at this point he has some obligation to explain himself, get direction, something before he resumes editing. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [1] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised (whether intentional or not) which he has made clear he is aware of "Shouldn't someone have posted a notice for me? I didn't get informed of this allegation at my talk page", in the SPI comment [2]. That would mean a block is in order, but again, given his random e-café access, we could block him for, say 24–72 hours and he could totally miss it by not visiting the e-café during the block period. Any longer block would be questionable, and I don't think we do a "you're blocked until you read and respond to this AN/I discussion" hostage-style block. Which makes this editor very hard to communicate with. He doesn't appear to have made "email me" available either, so that someone might try to gain his attention. Hard work, this one. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Facepalm I know exactly what I'm taking about, clearly you don't, or I was unclear. I didn't say "merge categories", did I? I was referring to boldly merging the list of trivial stubs that Wild Wolf listed on AfD into the main articles on Gettysburg's battle/battlefield then redirecting them to those parent articles to make them searchable. That would have effectively rendered the categories on insignificant trees and rivers, etc in those stubs redundant, and probably empty if excluded from the main article. Empty categories can be speedy deleted under C1 Unpopulated categories. That would have left relatively few for CfD to worry about. So say again, who doesn't know what they're talking about? The fact remains, this whole clean up process has been handled quite poorly, with a lack of bold initiative, and now people are looking to point blame out of all proportion. It's contemptible. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Removing articles from categories rendering them empty is not in accordance with due process. There is no quick bold officially sanctioned way of deleting a category. In any case redirects can and should still be categorised: a redirect to a section about a bridge should be categorised as a bridge. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages begins, "Most redirects should not be categorized" and stipulates a few exceptions. In the case of these Gettysburg articles those don't apply, as many of the stubs are neither "well known" nor "alternative names", they are simply very trivial mentions of things and redirecting/uncategorising them as such is unlikely to prove as troublesome as CfD. Seems well within the guidelines to me, and any bold editor would have made sense to me if they'd done it that way. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, instituting a block may be the only way to start a discussion with him. I have been watching this unfold and I haven't seen Target for Today replying to any of the messages on his talk page or on any of the deletion discussions. A temporary bloc might get his attention. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• MarcusBritish, this admin certainly does "blocked until you get your ass over to your talkpage" blocks - communication is key to this project. Also, creating duff categories is hugely disruptive, I had enough of it with a certain previous user that ended up indef blocked. It's like putting library books back on the wrong shelves. He hasn't edited since the 16th, and he has one of Marcus's helpful comments on the page as well as the deletion notices etc, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be at his sister's wedding or in bed with the flu. However, if he edits anywhere again without responding to the issue at hand, give me a shout and I will block him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that I have been working my way through all of this editor's category creations. While most recommendations to delete or merge are gaining consensus, there are are few exceptions. I'm not bothered if there is consensus to keep something I'm recommending for deletion or merging. But bringing these to a discussion is resulting in some being kept with help from the community to fix the issues that I see. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, I recommended keeping one category, but in doing so I actually looked through some of the links in the article and found other buildings of the same ilk. But they weren't in Gettysburg, so apparently it wasn't worth the trouble or some other such reason that he didn't categorize them. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of Target's category creations are perfectly OK. A majority are both duff and misplaced, as can be seen from User talk:Target for Today which sparkles with red-linked categories. All but a couple which have been at cfd since Oct 2011 are now red-linked and I expect a lot more will be red when open cfds are closed. (Deleted category creations do not appear in an editor's contributions.) Target has been creating categories since 2010 - this is not a novice making naive blunders but an editor paying no attention over a long period to consensus and policy (not to mention a failure to review existing categories, eg creating Category:Armories on 24/01/2001 when there was already Category:Armouries created Dec 09). Moreover it looks to me as if their first ever edit was the creation of Category:World War II air force films (misplaced as there is no Category:Air force films as opposed to Category:Aviation films) promptly renamed at cfd in Nov 2011. A new editor does not begin with a category creation, so Target is quite a veteran. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

►Wait a minute--I couldn't create articles prior to creating my Target for Today account, and all my prior edits were without an account! Two years ago I simply saw that the WWII film categories were overpopulated with air force films and saw that there was a category Category:World War II navy films--which still exists! So to create Category:World War II air force films which was a valid sibling, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try my hand at finally creating a page using the navy code. But when I copied the code from Category:World War II navy films and adjusted it for "air force", I couldn't then paste it to a new page until I created an account. So of course it was my first edit as I didn't have any experience creating pages -- I couldn't because I didn't have an account to use!!! Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• He's back editing, including category creation. On a related note, he's reverted my edit here, with Target insisting that his administration category Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg be categorized as part of the content tree. Contrary to WP:PROJCATS, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• [3] Refusing to take notice of the views of other reasonable editors is pretty much always disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Target for Today claims that creating seperate categories for the geographies of Gettysburg, Gettysburg Battlefield, and Adams County is not splitting hairs, which I would dispute. Gettysburg IS part of Adams County, and considering that there are only two articles in the Gettysburg cat and eight in the Adams County cat, having ten articles in a single category can't be that unwiedly. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he's discussing it, not dashing out and creating ten more categories that are just going to be deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is dashing out and creating more that will be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Really, this has got to stop. He's creating a bunch more categories, very similar to the type already created that have been deleted. The user either needs to slow down and discuss this or we need some sort of ban on category creation. Can we resolve this? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article creation is out of hand too. It is easy to find "sources" for almost anything about any Gettysburg facility, monument, creek, crossroads, anything, since the various newspapers in the area, for whatever reason, are all available on-line back well into the 1800s. So for instance (and there are many of these, this was just one created today) we now have Springs Hotel and Horse Railroad created entirely from old newspaper columns; the references are close to the size of the article text. Keeping up with all these— are they notable, can they be combined with some other article, are they being used as the basis for another outburst of category creation— is eating up a lot of time; I am clearly not the only person who is going over his contributions. And the madness is spreading to other subject areas, as he has created a bunch of separate articles on Nike Hercules installations (even though they are all essentially identical) and creating whole "Cold War" category structures on top of that. It's obvious that he can create a decent article, but he really needs to take some direction from other people in using his powers for good. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it is getting bad. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So everyone who has commented save one user has been in favour of something being done to either temporarily or indefinitely stop the user from creating new content. This shouldn't have to drag on much longer, so can someone less involved close this discussion with some sort of resolution? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – despite my having laid down a lot of AFG and fighting off the mob here to await TTTs response, I'm very disappointed. TTT seems to have come online, pissed about with categories for 3 hours, then responded to AN/I without really giving the matter or concerns any direct consideration. Despite a big orange "you have messages" banner, and notices all over his talk page, I don't think we can take this "I'll get round to you in my time" attitude, when this AN/I thread has spend days discussing this. Motion for admin to give TTT a severe warning to TTT advising that he discuss the category creation concerns, not past trivialities. If that fails, go for the topic ban until he does play ball. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I feel that TTT already has been warned, many times, about this; giving him yet another warning may or may not do much good. At any rate, I'd say something also has to be done about the dozens of articles he has been creating about the Gettysburg Battlefield, most of which are little more than notices that the place exists (see for example Spangler's Spring, Willoughby Run, and Blocher's Run), while other places which are marginally more informative, like Wheatfield Road, fail to explain why this battlefield feature deserves to have its own article. He has also forked the attacks of individual divisions from the Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Lately, he seems to be creating articles on each of the monuments on the battlefield (see Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments). This looks to me like an attempt to cover every possible detail about the battlefield.

I (and others) have alreadly nominated several of his articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excelsior Field, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocher's Run, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McLaws' Assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawford's charge). I am asking anyone who agrees with me on this to please vote and/or comment on these pages. I am planning to nominate the articles in the memorials and monuments category for deletion on Tuesday morning; if anyone thinks additional articles from the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be deleted as well, perhaps we could nominate these articles as a group.

One last thing: as a consequence of this, perhaps we should establish some notability guidelines for places (similar to the guidelins found here), which hopefully will help solve some of these problems in the future. Wild Wolf (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wolf, see the top of Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) as to why they don't exist at the moment. Consensus, or lack of, doesn't always go against editors, but against safeguarding Wiki too, and results in dragging people down due to lack of guidelines/policy. Where there are much needed missing policies, and consensus failed to provide a solution, there is a lack of sense and we have no one to blame but the detrimental people who made it impossible for a consensus to be formed at the time, whether that's fair or not. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wild Wolf, you may wish to review WP:CANVASS; exhorting "anyone who agrees with me on this" to go to debates and !vote a particular way is bad form, and likely a violation of policy. State how you feel all you like, but the instant you try to get editors to participate (and do so only for a subset that feels a certain way), it's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very sorry about the canvassing. My intention was to encourage other editors to get involved in the process. This was a poor choice of words on my part. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For my part, I dropped in when I saw that Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg was part of Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), a tracking category for AFD debates (and not categories, articles, or the like). The same category was also placed on an article and its associated Deletion Debate (here for the article and here for the debate). Now you'll also note here that he's essentially using a hardcoded version of the recently deleted {{rescue}}, which may or may not be problematic. I don't know that a block is warranted, if he's discussing matters - but he absolutely needs to stop creating categories and engage in discussion about these issues. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If they are commenting here but ignoring the issues raised, is that really discussing? Does that merit taking a community block off the table? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very clear consensus here for a block, and as such I have blocked Target for Today indefinitely. Note that I very intentionally mean indefinite, and very much do not mean infinite. If Target for Today would simply start talking instead of barreling ahead, and actually address the concerns of people here and at CSD, there is a reasonable chance that this editor could remain a part of the community. But since the editor showed us today that they are fully aware of the discussion yet are not only choosing to ignore the substance of it but also to go ahead with the disputed creation anyway, I don't see any way other than a block to stop the drain on community resources caused by the disruptive category creation. I'm not going to close this section myself, as I'm willing to hear the input of other editors (or trouts, if you prefer). Additionally, people may wish to propose unblock conditions, though it may simply be easier to wait and see if some other response is forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible limit to category creation block?

CfD seemed to me to be the primary concern of most commenters, here, so I'm a bit surprised to see that the block includes article creation, too. I thank Qwyrxian and everyone for their participation, but I must ask, at the risk of exhausting people's patience, if there's significant support for limiting this block to category creation? While TfT seems to be equally non-responsive to discussing his articles, those articles, in themselves, aren't problematic in the way the categories have been, seems to me. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have originally agreed with you on this, but especially given activity over the past weekend and a look at some of the larger categories he's created, it seems to me that there is also a problem with him fragmenting articles (e.g. the urge to make a separate article on every little movement/attack in the larger Battle of Gettysburg, most of which require the context of the battle as a whole to be understood). I think he needs to talk to others about this too. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and the lack of any comments in support of my own suggests that the community agrees with you, and is satisfied with the action taken, at least for now. If that remains so, this lengthy discussion should probably be marked as resolved and archived, imho. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that before we can consider any editing restrictions like a topic ban, first the user has to show that they're capable of and willing to listen and collaborate. Should xe give such assurances, I think that discussing lighter approaches is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find that typically when I or other users find themselves in this type of situation, we just want the problem to go away. We try to come up with the fairest way of fixing the problem, but if it goes away because of some more extreme action that is taken, we are just as happy. Most users are probably just happy the category creation by TfT has stopped. They may not realize he was indefinitely blocked. I'm happy the problem has been dealt with, but I am wondering if an indefinite block is too much. I can support what was done, so long as the block is lifted relatively easily once TfT expresses some desire to work with others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself engaged in somewhat of an slow-motion edit war with user Wee Curry Monster talk at Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are severe problems with the edit he tries to impose, which is:

"The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Luis Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."

While it adds more detail to the article, compared to current version, it presents the disagreement based on WP:PRIMARY sources, as rightly noted by Senra (Talk) (and agreed by Nev1 (talk)) in this talk page section.

I take a pause here to state that I've learned a while ago to not to respond to WCM's personal attacks. He calls me "a disruptive editor", so he usually focus on me instead of the issue. And I've learned that going that way (commenting about editors) is fruitless and poisoning.

As a result from Senra's advice, we started gathering secondary sources at the end of that section. While it was easy to find secondary sources stating that looting and destruction of private buildings occurred (one of them even explicitly saying "There seems to be no substantial controversy over the basic facts of the intervention, although President Jackson transformed them substantially in his Annual Message to Congress"), sources presented by WCM are questionable because:

[I'm not going into this discussion because it's not relevant at this point]

Even if he would have succeed in providing secondary, reliable sources explicitly stating that the civilians were not affected by the incursion, he is still pushing for his original text, which presents the primary sources' versions. I've reverted him three times now, in the last 30 days, and he seems to neglect the concerns raised about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources. What I'd wish from this petition here is that WCM acknowledges that article content cannot be based on primary sources (specially in contentious matters), and desists from introducing the text above. I apologize beforehand if this is not the place to seek for help, as I'm (relatively speaking) new to Wikipedia and this kind of conflicts. --Langus (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty basic: between a primary source and a secondary source covering that primary, always prefer the secondary. Contrasting a primary against a secondary is essentially OR, unless there's a secondary detailing the differences between the primary and other secondaries. Otherwise, the contrast has to be made and argued by the editor. We can't do that. It's like the police report says one thing, and we see something else in the evidence. Unfortunately, we're not the detectives, so nothing we can say is admissible to the court. To stretch a metaphor. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, I noticed this was a serious problem with many GA and even FA-class articles. If someone wants to put together an investigative committee to look into this problem, I might be interested in helping out. Although I can't remember the name of it at this time, there was a FA-class anime-related article that was written from primary sources with little guidance from the secondary. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

As stated by the OP, around two months ago I did indeed attempt to mediate this long running content dispute by pointing out to the primary editors the difficulties of using primary sources. I thought the issues had settled down. It seems they are continuing. I note that Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has come up again; I recommend that this source should be taken to the WP:RSN to obtain a consensus on its reliability. I also note that Mabuska (talk · contribs) is a recent editor of the article who has not been informed of this incident post; I have taken the liberty of doing so --Senra (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has been at WP:RSN in this thread. Reading that thread now, the RS nature of that source does seem to have been obfuscated and it was not the primary reason for that RSN post. I recommend it is taken there again --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why i am mentioned at all in regards to this. I've only made one edit to the article (and none in the talk) and that was a good faith edit in regards to the use of a non-English language name in brackets in an article where it seems totally out of place considering this is the English Wikipedia and the place name in use is officially in English. Please don't drag uninvolved editors into this source discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: I only included you for completeness as you have edited recently and thought you might be interested. No matter and sorry to bother you --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is not so much a content dispute as Langus trying to game the system to remove some content he doesn't like. As part of Argentina's claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, it claims that in 1831, the USS Lexington destroyed the settlement formed by Luis Vernet at Port Louis. The sources actually conflict on this, Vernet claims the entire settlement was destroyed, the US record from the log of the Lexington states that guns were spiked and a powder store destroyed. Langus wishes to remove the latter from the article substituting it with additional content from sources backing up the Argentine version of events. WP:NPOV requires we represent all significant viewpoints in the article. I'm sorry to bring content to ANI but its only by explaining the facts around content does it become clear that there is a POV agenda here. The material is sourced, the sources are not questionable, the sources used are not being used to source controversial or disputed material. These are red herrings to cover up a POV agenda. The source he is disputing was written by Professor John B Hattendof D Phil FRHist S., at the time of publication the Ernest J King Professor of Maritime history, US Naval War College. He is claiming this is unreliable and questionable. Tatham is not being used to cite a controversial or dispited fact. The text is in fact lifted from another wikipedia article - Falkland Islands.

Langus is disruptive, this is the second time he has dragged me to WP:ANI over a content dispute [4], he see WP:DR as a means to filibuster discussions till he gets the exact content he desires and his content proposals favour Argentina's sovereignty claim over the islands. [5] you'll note that he has changed the article to his favoured version and the information from the log of the Lexington removed, the article totally favouring the Argentine version of events. So he reverts then comes to ANI trying to game the system into keeping his preferred text. You'll also note my last edit was nearly two weeks ago, this was a stale issue. Langus has not commented in talk since 26 November 2011.

Its not as if this is the only article he has behaved disruptively on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands,Luis Vernet,Falklands War,ARA General Belgrano,Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute . As I note here [6] the contribution history is odd, with an account registered in 2007 making no substantive contribution till 2011. I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818, who co-incidentally decided to restart his disruptive IP edits on Falklands topics this weekend. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the use of primary sources; it's in interpreting primary sources, or using them for value judgements ("best", "greatest", etc.) that we run into trouble. In this case, where Argentinean sources, which are secondary sources, state one thing, and American, primary sources, another, removing the primary sources "because they're not secondary sources" reduces the article to a non-neutral state. That said, I'd presume there'd have to be some sort of secondary source mentioning the Lexington's account of the affair, doesn't there? But until it's found there's no reason to remove the information from the article "just because it's a primary source". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bushranger. The bolded sentence above seems to be a fairly simple statement of facts, is there any particular interpretation of it that WCM is making Langus? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bushranger. If there is not a secondary claiming the information in the primary, how would one judge the reliability of the primary, or its importance in a POV? Surely there's a secondary. Also agree with Chimpmunkdavis that it is a fairly simple statement of facts, and want to know Langus' problem with the statement more specifically. That he hasn't commented in the talk page of that article is distressing. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Comment below makes a better point. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of primary sources in historical articles does not fly, see WP:HISTRS, and the repeated rejection of primaries for historical articles at WP:RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again WCM has slung accusations all over the place, effectively shifting the focus of this matter to a person (me). I'll say this again: if I'm really the 'monster' you say I am, then what are you waiting for to open a RfC on me?? Or maybe a new SPI? Anyone can see that verbose Alex79818 and me have two very different writing styles, yet you still insist with this.

I brought this here because, as I said, there's a slow edit war going on. Bushranger, have you read the talk page? These are not "Argentinean sources": Barry M. Gough,[7] Lowell S. Gustafson,[8] Harold F. Peterson,[9] etc.; every source I could find (secondary sources) adhere to Vernet's version, which is that the settlement was pillaged. The only secondary source presented by WCM that depicts the Lexington 's version is former governor of the Falklands David Tatham, in his Dictionary of Falklands Biography which was already taken to WP:RSN and its use was discouraged in contentious matters. Chipmunkdavis, if we present a disagreement of primary sources, when secondary sources largely agree that only one of them is true, then we're giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory, effectively failing WP:NPOV guidelines. Please note that I'm not saying that there is no support for the Lexington version, but so far WCM hasn't presented evidence of this. That he previously included that text in another WP article (Falkland Islands) is no reason to automatically spread it across the whole site.

@Xavexgoem: why do you say I didn't comment in the Talk page??? Don't believe everything you hear... Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -> Ctrl+F -> Langus <enter>

Also note that I'm not removing content, it's WCM who wants to add it. --Langus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it an interesting fact in itself that the Lexington's log underreported the situation. Regarding the edit war, hopefully it has now stopped with the tag. If the original version is the one without, then yes, per WP:BRD spirit it should stay there till talkpage discussion ends (now it has started). Your interpretation of the primary conflict agrees with mine. I suggest you both trout yourselves for the slow edit war without talkpage, without WP:3O, etc, and follow DR now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:BRD I should be reverting Langus for him to start the Discussion, the text was there unchallenged for 2 weeks, its been in the Falkland Islands far longer and was the subject of an RFC in June 2011, that rejected Langus' claims. He is raising the same issue, repeatedly on multiple articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been there without challenge for 2 weeks, it has been on Falkland Islands for far longer. By any convention on wikipedia there is a consensus for its inclusion. This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT its about WP:NPOV and an editor seeking to re-inforce an Argentine position rather than presenting all opinions in the literature. As I point out in the talk page, I have access to the sources quoted above and Langus is misleading by omission. Several of the sources quoted present both opinions, eg Gustafson, but he presents a selective quotation from that source to support only one side of events.

The Log of a US warship and a respected US historian are definitely not WP:FRINGE sources. He is removing content, he is vetoing inclusion of the US version of events.

He doesn't answer the point he has not commented in talk since 26 November; pointedly he tries to obfuscate the fact. And again he doesn't respond in the talk page. The most specious of arguments is that consensus text conforming to WP:V and WP:RS can't be moved from one article to another. He is being disruptive, one only has to look at his contribution history to see that, as he instigates conflict on every article he edits. WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in effect. The same thing that happened when he attempted to remove the same content on Falkland Islands with an RFC [10] that was unsuccessful. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:

And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article, he reprises the same argument time and time again. This is the very epitomy of disruptive and tendentious editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False: the text was introduced in the article for the first time almost three months ago as you can see here. Then you waited for a month and pushed for it again. Since then I've been reverting you, and if I didn't have the time to seek for help in the last 2 weeks that doesn't mean that you have 'won' consensus. It doesn't matter if the text was on another article for 1, 3 or 7 years, because that same time the original text remained unchallenged in the real article in question, which is Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands; that is the consensus to which WP:BRD refers to. And it doesn't matter because if we discover an error in an article we must be capable of correcting it, even if it sat there for years.

"He has not commented in talk since 26 November": maybe because no one else did? I'm right there now.

"This is an issue that was already raised and settled": false, this is the first time that concern has been raised about the validity of that primary source.

"And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article": which one??

You know what is disruptive? You attacking me on every page, as you do here, here and here, instead of addressing the WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR concerns raised originally by uninvolved editors. --Langus (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Falkland Islands#History to 1982 where I copied the text from. See also Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 12#RfC: USS Lexington paragraph. It should be one of the best sentences in wikipedia with every single word being scrutinised as it has. The text was agreed in June 2011 as a result of the RFC started by Langus. He is claiming my comments are false, the written record shows they are not.

He wishes to reprise the discussion and go over every word again, with the same piece of text on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Is that by the very definition of the word tendentious? Calling tendentious conduct tendentious, highlighting a failure to use WP:TALK and now he claims that "It's not enough to be present in the literature" regarding content.

As I pointed out earlier, this was a stale issue, with the article stable for nearly 2 weeks. He reverted and ran straight to ANI, this is clearly gaming the system and tendentious conduct. Its the second time I've been dragged to ANI by Langus. Could someone please close this drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can have the last word. Next time I'll just request wikiquette assistance in the very moment you start the defamation process. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on... if you copied the text from Falkland Islands#History to 1982, did you give proper attribution? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did but your point is? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, will someone please remove their talkpage access for the duration of the block? I'm likely far too involved, and their sudden "turnaround" is making me sick to my stomach (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of Satan, Oppose – DF represents one POV, you clearly represent another, so such a move would be WP:POINTY and conceited. The best thing you can do, it leave the lion caged without teasing it, and wait until the week ends. You won't gain anything by arguing with him, and it could lead to you being accused of baiting, if it persists. WP:ROPE comes to mind. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 21:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to just unwatch it, BW. pablo 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Extend to Indef per this, Dream Focus just doesn't get Wikipedia and that it isn't a street fight or a battleground. If DF doesn't get Wikipedia after more than 5 years, I can see no logical reason we should pretend to ourselves that next week week will be any different, or next month for that matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• End block - Since it seems like this was prematurely ended and others are chiming in, here's my two cents. In my opinion "battlefield behavior" was begun by the deletionist crew when they attacked, yet again, the Rescue Squadron template and by the nose-counting rather than principle-following administrator who closed that as "Delete." Dream Focus was frustrated and JClemens went rogue, in my view. And not a word is being said about the obvious badness of that block, while the frustrated inclusionist is being menaced. Yes, there is a battleground. Now ask yourselves — from whence does this nastiness come? Carrite (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also to chime in; I didn't nose count. I thought I'd made this clear by specifically saying, in the close, that I wasn't nose-counting. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Excessive Block Immediately Dream Focus is a valuable member of the Article Rescue Squadron and our rescue activities are harmed by his absence. CallawayRox (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon nelson (talk · contribs) is an editor who edits extensively in BLPs, but who doesn't seen to understand WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP; he doesn't like listening to people or using edit sumamries or talking to people. A number of different editors have spoken to him multiple times about the same few issues relating to his edits, going back a number of years, and he refuses to listen or taken on board what they are saying. Examples from his talk page:

• Adding unreferenced information on BLPs, including change of playing statistics without a source or explanation why, or using sources which don't support information - August 2007, January 2008, June 2008, December 2008, March 2009, December 2009, December 2010, February 2011, March 2011, September 2011, October 2011, January 2012, January 2012
• Not using edit summaries - November 2007, January 2008, February 2008, February 2009, June 2010, January 2011, February 2011, October 2011
• Infobox formatting - December 2007, January 2008, January 2008, February 2008, March 2010
• Removing valid information, including references - May 2008, September 2008, February 2009, April 2009, July 2010
• Removing article improvement tags without dealing with the issues - September 2008

He was blocked in March 2008 for the above, but within 10 days was warned by an admin for the same kind of behaviour. In the very few times that Simon has used his talk page, he cites computer games as his source for his edits, which will obviously not do. Given all of the above, I am bringing it here for wider attention. GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the *current* problems with his editing are.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continues to add unreferenced information to BLPs, will not respond to talk page comments, continues refusal to us edit summaries despite warning & comments on that matter going back over 4 years... GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4... GiantSnowman 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one? GiantSnowman 10:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I've issued a warning pursuant to this ArbCom remedy; I wanted to give Simon one last chance to choose to comply with WP:V and WP:RS, before getting my banhammer out. Further edits in violation of WP:BLP will lead to sanctions, as far as I'm concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. I will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 10:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to raise a question of content, but are the stats changes actually correct? Rich Farmbrough, 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the edit to Darren Holden is referenced in a couple of seconds to http://www.hartlepoolunited.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10326~55534,00.html . The place of birth is hardly more difficult to find references for. None of these are especially likely to be contentious, therefore they are only required to be verifiable not to be verified.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

It was a bit ago so excuse me for the late notice (I was gone for the holiday's that weekend and my watchlist page had gotten backed up so I didn't notice it until an edit on the talk page), but User:Edokter reverted a FPP page without discussion based on his commentary with the reason of being bold. While normally that is okay, that template is fully protected so no one who isn't an admin can do anything about his reversion. He used his own judgement without consulting with the community to edit that page.∞陣内Jinnai 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I outlined my reasons on the talk page. I really did not pay any regard to the protection, as these high visibility templates are routinely protected against vandalism, not because of some edit war or content dispute, in which case Jinnai would have a point. I also did it after reviewing the entire discussion, basically overturning an earlier decision. — Edokter (talk) — 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there objections to the edit they can be discussed on the talk page, no need for fire and pitchforks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is no one can undo the edit when you came and reverted it, especially with while good intendioned, what seems to be somewhat faulty logic. The notice on the talk page appears to just be related only to a personal opinion on the matter; it doesn't show that you reviewed it not was anyone warned beforehand. Whether or not it was the intent, it has the appearance of a drive-by personal revert of a protected space by an admin who was being bold.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChessPlayerLev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Userlinks added for admin convenience Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm human, and enough is enough. I've been accused on an article Talk page, of calling two editors names, "Asshats" and "Idiots" here, which I did not do, ever, anywhere. (I would never do that.) I'm looking for some fairness here; to be falsely accused of this on a WP article Talk page, is really out of line. It seems very not right to me, abusive, even violent. Am I supposed to just absorb it? Is this Wikipedia norm? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, can we move past this petty forum drama and focus on actually improving the Chess articles on Wikipedia? I've gone out of my way to ignore your personal attacks before. The one time I finally respond to defend myself, you immediately make 3 incendiary posts in 12 minutes on the Talk Page about it, another post on the Admin Board for Edit warring, a post on Jasper Deng's page, AND this particular topic on the Admin board about it? Come on, I don't even have anything personal against you. I had intended to just ignore your further provocations on the Talk page too, but since you've brought it here, I'm forced to respond. Congratulations. Anyways, you're correct; you never called Jasper Deng an "asshat". I apologize. You only called him a "dick", a "weasel", "insufferable", accused him of writing "B.S.", and noted he was "unable to learn anything or admit any mistake". I'm sorry that my memory for insults is not more accurate. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we have a WP:BOOMERANG here. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know the concept even has its own theme song?[29] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions: yes and yes, respectively. Also, duck. Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CPL, you're not sorry about anything – not buying it. You deliberately manufactured a scathing lie. Hello. That's slander. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding legal threats to your resume, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think it's the other way around here. Don't blame him or I when an admin comes to sully your (Ihardlythinkso's) clean block log. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CPL, I would personally never fabricate a lie, as you did, against anyone. But that's me. Clearly, you blame "poor memory", but I'm not buying that, you said I used names "Asshat" and "Idiots" repeatedly. I never used them once. Where do you get off? You can make up anything and accuse? No matter how vicious and untrue? Sorry, not taking it. You crossed a bad line. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop making these comments in blatant violation of WP:AGF, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, you, not him will be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Take a break from Wikipedia until you can agree to follow these, because otherwise the WP:BOOMERANG will hit you even harder. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper, I have no problem dropping the issue, but I would like something done. Think about it: how could CPL's excuse, poor memory, account for the fact he accused me of using a name like "Asshats"?! That makes no sense; is not plausible by any stretch. Is this type of thing allowed to just coast on WP?! What expectation can I have about this? It is not a safe environment here if a user can fabricate and accuse and get away scott free. I'll stop and listen to what you have to say re expectations. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, look at your own behavior. Do you think your dispute with me at Desperado (chess) is in agreement with your comment here? Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that somehow I deserve or should accpet CPL's false and fabricated accuastions of name-callng based on our interations on Desperado (chess), I wholly reject that logic. To fabricate something vicious and false is something altogther different, Jasper. Perhaps you are not objective in this case here and should recuse yourself. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper, if you wanted to take some sort of action against me back at Desperado (chess), you should have done it then. To hold a grudge and let it color what's happening now, is a kind of logic that leads to, let's say, a complicated and unfair mess, unsupportable by any reasonable kind of path-plan. (What if you held grudges on everyone forever, and used them to weigh in on any current event, repeatedly, forever, as a plan of fairness? That idea is full of dysfunction and collapses on its own weight. Is that your plan?) I think you might be less objective here than you should be, overlapping past grudges onto current things happening *now*. Bad. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out aloud. If you are going to exchange insults over an article, at least try to find one where it actually matters. The 'dispute' at Desperado (chess) seems to be over whether a '!' is justified for a move, or whether it deserves a '?' (or possibly a '??'). At least where I overstep WP:CIVIL I have the common decency to do it over something that actually matters. Can I suggest you read Life, and then try to get one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. I decided that I was not going to open a WQA for Ihardlythinkso. I pointed it out because that's my first bad interaction with him and it shows that his attitude towards Wikipedia hasn't changed since then. My point here is that Ihardlythinkso, like you pointed out, is devoting too much of his time on the project to this dispute at the moment. Speedy close for this thread, please!. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It mattered. And you were not involved. (It is easy to render criticism from afar, when you are not involved.) Apparently, your issues have vastly more importance. Please let us know what they are, so we can make up our own minds on that, okay? It is so *easy* to insult and tell someone: "get a life". Easy and cheap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a cesspool of a magnet (or magnet of a cesspool) dumping-ground for insults here. Anyone else like to drop a few cheap insults, to make themselves feel better? Feel welcome and okay about it, others have preceeded you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since you asked, a few questions. Has anyone ever died as a result of a lack of chess? Has anyone ever died of a chess overdose? Has anyone ever started a war over a chess match, or stopped one to play chess? Do chess pieces have their own places in the periodic table? Is the right to play chess written into the universal declaration of human rights? Is there no God but chess, and is Bobby Fisher (or whoever) his prophet? Or is it just a game where grown men spend a great deal of time thinking about how they can defeat another grown man in an arbitrary contest which has no more significance to long-term history than tiddlywinks or bog-snorkelling? Please provide citations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If chess was as trivial as you say, why would the USSR for over four decades make it a testament to their superiority over the West? Why would the Fischer–Spassky match be made tantamount to the fate of the Cold War? Korchnoi wrote a book titled "Chess is My Life" – go ask him about it. And watch the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" for a clue what it means that chess = Art. People can live and die, 7 billion people will die in the span on one lifetime, so what? But without art (and ethics), life (I think) is meaningless. And don't worry, there will always be wars. (Man is constantly at war, just like the ant. It is in our DNA. So what?) There can be justice on the chessboard – tell me anywhere, or any time, there is equal justice in real life, where humans rule. Your view of history is in your own valued self-defined paradigm. Apparently to you wars outline that paradigm. Whereas I think wars are boring and just a predicatable outcome of DNA programming. Zzzzzz... You're evidently not a player, so you couldn't know. Chess does not need me to defend it (did you think so?). Nice to meet you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chess pieces are definitely not in the periodic table – don't be silly. (But, I think the pawn is in there somewhere; near Uranium!?)[reply]

Massive fights over trivial matters remind me of this Dilbert entry:[30] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an edit war it would easily fall under WP:LAME. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with you there. Maybe it should get its own special entry somewhere so Ihardlythinkso can look back on it and wonder why they raised a Hurricane Katrina in a thimble. Blackmane (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Everyone stop typing and go get a cup of tea. Ihardlythinkso, have two cups; if you intend to behave belligerently, don't be suprised if you get some mild push-back. Everyone else, stop antagonizing Ihardlythinkso; he's clearly too worked up to handle discussion of his behavior at the moment. Perhaps a WQA is in order, but not today. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. (My weakness, is that I will respond to stuff thrown at me. No matter if it brings death to me. I don't care. Ethics & Art surpass death. Baseball Buggs, is there a song about that?! Shucks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Archies might have recorded one with that theme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You called people horrible names, someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake), and you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing "ethical or artistic" (to paraphrase you) about that. People make mistakes, they get words wrong. That's not lying; that's simple error, and it's part of human nature. We are fallible creatures, and it's folly to ascribe to malice what should be ascribed to simple human failings that we all - yes, even you - suffer from.

My suggestion to you? Stop provoking other editors. Insults like the ones in your edit history combined with this report give a strong impression of provoking people into attacking you, then crying "victim" when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs. You're not scaring away timid editors by being "blunt", you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle. Honesty and politeness go very well together. (And to be honest, when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction.) --NellieBly (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call people horrible names. Please specify where I did that, so all can see. Otherwise, this is a mistaken exaggeration. Please back up what you've accused. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake)" The fact is, CPL accused that I *repeatedly* called Jasper Deng and Elen of Roads "Asshats" and "Idiots". If he thought he knew that, that I used those names against others repeatedly, when I did not ever use those names ever, then that is quite a huge memory problem. I do not think any reasonable person would believe that it was a memory problem, as you are asserting. Especially, the uncommon weird name "Asshats", which is rather unique (I've never even heard of that name in my entire life). No reasonable person would believe his claim of memory problem, given these facts, IMO. I think it is a big stretch to defend his chosen excuse, a BIG one that you go out of your way to make. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing 'ethical or artistic' (to paraphrase you) about that." I believe the excuse "memory problem" was a lie, yes, for reasons stated, and I think any reasonable person would agree. Being ethical is not the same as being infallible, I never claimed infallibility on anything. You want me to accept the unreasonable excuse on "good faith" in order to prove I am ethical?! When CPL hasn't said a word and others come rushing to defend him, no matter how unreasonable the argument? I'm sorry, that just does not square with me. It is not reasonable. (If CPL could elaborate how he came up with "Asshats" and "repeatedly", then there might be a reasonable basis to believe him. But to just throw the excuse out there, and then let others come rushing in to attack me, is not right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that humans are fallible. I am fallible. I do not need the lecture. What you're basically saying, is that no one ever may accuse another editor of lying, on Wikipedia. (Confirm that you believe that.) Even if any reasonable person would conclude that, given the facts. "Asshats" is a pretty unique name. Saying I used it "repeatedly" is ... what? A "memory failure"? This is not reaosnable. But I'll agree that accusations of lying, may not be supported or permitted on Wikipedia. Is that what you're saying? Because I can accept that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, the implications of that standard. (What is to stop editor XYZ, from going aroud whenever he or she feels like, telling other editors: "I resent that you swore at me and said xxxxxxx to me repeatedly!" And then when the accused editor complains, the accuser blames "memory failure", and then does the same thing again later, to the same or different editors? When do you draw the line and disbelieve the "memory failure" excuse? Only when a pattern has been established? Is that the standard then – a pattern prerequisite?)

"provoking people into attacking you, then crying 'victim' when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs". I really reject that line of logic. You are basically assuming a posture of blaming the victim. ("She was raped and it was her fault because the dress she was wearing was suggestive.") The fact is, I expect the same kind of protection from abuse that any other editor expects from WP, not thing more or less. And if I am at fault for violating WP policy re attacks, then please charge me and punish me, I accept that too. But do so farily, in both directions. That is fundamental fairness, and I don't have to defend it, it is obvious in principle. It's my belief CPL fabricated a viscious accusation, I don't buy his "memory problem" excuse, but you're saying I need to accept the viciousness because I myself have been a "bad boy". Oh gosh. Then why wasn't I prosecuted for that earlier? We have a trial and no jury, just denegrading comments and taunts, in it's place, and that is okay? Wonderful. If I did something wrong, then charge me when it happens. I've done nothing outside WP policy and given no comments to others that didn't seem to me appropriate. I cannot control others hurt feelings, and you seemingly want to make me responsible for any slight someone might feel at any time in the past, without prosecution, but to assume guilt, and accept any denegration now and in future for what I "have done". It's not an acceptable formula. It's pretyt messed up, IMO. Charge me with something if I commit a violation of policy. Don't hold grudges and use them to allow bullies to spit and slander and kick and punch and throw dirt and tease and taunt and name-call and etc., and then justify it all in your mind. That lacks fundamental fairness. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You're not scaring away timid editors by being 'blunt', you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle." And that is all supposition on your part. People are adults here, and I don't go around thinking and worrying all day long, on how I might possibly be responsible how everyone around me may "feel" at every given moment, and take on that kind of self-burden/guilt-trip – which would be both irrational to do, and crazy-making. I never said I was perfect. You are attemting to make me responsible for being perfect as though I am some kind of magical god who can ensure no one has the slightest bad moment in their day. I respect adults who think independently and have some resiliancy and strength. I refuse to go around on eggshells so that perhaps someday you might not disapprove of something I might say that perhaps gave someone an uncomfortable moment because of their own psychology. Look what you're saying. "Be perfect or expect the worst." That isn't reasonable or fair, or beneficial for anyone. It's not even healthy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction." That's genuninely interesting; thank you for offering that! (However, it doesn't apply to my complaint in this incident. I complained about an editor deliberately fabricating mean & nasty accusations about names I called other editors, then posting it on an article Talk page. I don't see any connexion, but thank you nevertheless.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out very early on with a reference to Talk:Desperado (chess)#"Obviously, Black had better moves", you've said someone is 'insufferable' and 'insufferable, incurable' and a 'WP:WEASEL' (which doesn't make any sense, try reading what you're linking to) and a WP:DICK and said they write 'B.S.' and were 'unable to learn anything or admit any mistake' (repeated accusations of being unable to admit a mistake in fact). While not noted earlier, another accusation was some acts like a 'WP cop'.

As others have said, it seems to be true you never said someone was an 'asshat' or an 'idiot' directly, but when you've said so many insulting things about others, it's easy to imagine someone may not remember correctly what insults you have used. Even if it is true that it wasn't a genuine mistake, there's no way we're going to know that unless the person admits it themselves. (A history of accusing people incorrectly may be something we can look in to, one or a series of related instances is not.) So there's nothing else to do but accept it may have been a genuine mistake and move on constructively. Definitely accusing people of slander is a bad idea since as has been pointed out, that carries the air of a legal threat which is a real nono on wikipedia. (It also doesn't help your case when you're saying someone slandered you by 'deliberately manufactured a scathing lie', when it's easily possible the person simply misremembered what was said so you've effectively accused someone of doing something serious without clear evidence.)

AFAIK, I have little experience with either of you and I'm definitely not involved in chess articles. But having read comments from both parties here and in the other thread, relying solely on what they actually said, not what others said about them, I have little sympathy with your POV. (Which seems to be the case for most uninvolved parties here and elsewhere.) In other words, repeating what's been said, please consider whether your approach helps communication with others, or harms it. Even if you can't see it yourself, the evidence from the way others have responded should tell you.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone did call someone else an idiot or an asshat, then it's a WP:NPA, although not likely blockable (yet) - it's also directly traceable through their edit history. To accuse someone of saying something that they didn't, and is not traced through their edit history is uncivil. To accuse a random person on the internet of saying something is not slander or libel. WP:WQA is where we help peopel communicate civility. If all y'all are having trouble gaining WP:CONSENSUS on an article, incivility and personalization of the situation won't help anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ClaudioSantos has one of the widest topic bans ever issued (see: Wikipedia:Topic bans#Placed by the Wikipedia community. I would like to know if he violated his topic ban by takling part in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Dowbiggin) about a person involved in the abortion/eugenetics discussion. It is a borderline case, but allowed or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban that wide is contrary to reason. I consider an OTRS ticket to be something far past that sort of "ban" - especially since I could readily see significant problems with the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note: This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. does not seem to extend to "opining on noticeboards thereon" as that sentence is clearly the outer limit of the "widening". Collect (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am free to ask if it is a violation or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said you couldn't ... you were just given an opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could be considered a violation, since a topic ban is intended to apply to all areas of Wikipedia; "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." It's not clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise in this ban. And it doesn't seem right to oppose the ban through selective enforcement, if the ban is considered improper then it should be modified or removed after a new community discussion.

However, looking into the history of this, and the discussion that led to the expansion of the older ban that only covered euthanasia, I don't see that this ban was enacted due to problems that occurred outside of article space. So in my opinion, the ban shouldn't extend to AfD discussions. -- Atama頭 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult again. The topic ban is so widely set because he kept searching the limits of his prior topic ban. And that is just what happens here again. But if this allowed, so be it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, besides his usual rant against Jabbsworth et al, he now also comments on the content of the article about Ian Dowbiggin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ksanthosh89 has nominated a slew of articles for WP:AFD today, using incorrect reasons ("there is nothing in the article" for clearly labelled disambiguation pages) or no rationale at all ("is this an article?" for a stub). I have left messages on his talkpage, but he persists in creating these malformed AfDs, all of which are almost certainly going to be speedily kept and closed. Please could a passing admin drop him a warning, and perhaps a temporary topic ban on nominating articles, at least until he's read WP:DP. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that he is now going through my created articles and nominating all of them for deletion, giving no rationale whatsover. Rather than a topic ban, I now recommend a block for hounding and violation of WP:POINT. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yunshui. This has turned from a competency issue to just plain vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing lastest one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Henry_Blackwell, concur. Article is sourced and no reason given for deletion. Nobody Ent 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the latest one - all of them. GiantSnowman 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days by MuZemike. Any objection against mass reversion/deletion of his nominations? I don't think that they worth keeping open or proper closure, just nuke 'em. Max Semenik (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are being nuked and reverted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant bad faith and disruptive string of nominations with the sole intent to stalk and harass. User has been blocked 3 days as such, all AFD pages have been deleted, and all nominated articles hence reverted. --MuZemike 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given him a week, he should be thankful - oh, I see his 2nd unblock request reason was 'thank you'. His first was "I will also give 2 line articles. Which I have nominated for deletion are two line articles. First confirm me that two line articles can be created without ref." and I've made it clear if he actually does this he might be blocked for a violation of WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A big thank you to MuZemike for sorting that out. Much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it would excuse the behavior (and it may not make a difference), but is there any possibility that this is a compromised account? I notice that there a three-month gap in edits: previous to that gap, the user was working on an article and adding refs, and after the gap is a mass AfD. The user also has his email listed right on his user page. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need a careful administrator which could solve the problem. He needs to carefully read discussion between users Ljuboni [32] and me, decide who is right and take the right action, because this constant edits are useless. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't settle content disputes. I have blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring - if anyone thinks he is one of the regulars editing while logged out, please tell me and I'll block the account too. Meanwhile, if you can't agree, I recommend one of the steps in Dispute Resolution. Page is locked for 72 hours, if you guys restart your edit war when the protection expires, I'll block the lot of you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could you recommend us a neutral "Third opinion" Wikipedian? Philosopher12 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:30 Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – All parties displaying refreshing amounts of tolerance, level headedness and willingness to AGF. Whatever next!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please look at this?, I am tired of this sort of behavior. I have worked on this article before, I am part of the Wikiproject Empire of Brazil, yet I have to deal with this sort of disruptive behavior. Thank you Paulista01 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, WCM's request seems politely phrased and reasonable. In what way was it disruptive? Wouldn't a straightforward answering of the question ended the problem? I see no admin action being relevant here, certainly nothing block-worthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politely phrased? I disagree. I am not asking anybody to block him, all I want is not to waste hours and hours in a useless discussion. He is being personal in the discussion, this is not correct. Thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not seeking admin action to block, then you're probably in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for incidents requiring administrative action. There is a long list of potential avenues you could try at the top of this page. But it might be better to simply drop this; as an impartial outsider I see nothing actionable here on either side. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been polite throughout the discussion, though rather bemused by why an article on wikipedia was moved to a minority name in the English language. User:Lecen has made several remarks about "tone" that I took to be a genuine misunderstanding and commented that was not my intention. Now Paulista is doing the same. Being Glaswegian I am not the most sensitive of souls but is there anything to answer here? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kim Dent-Brown, there's nothing really requiring admin action here, and I normally wouldn't have said anything to you if I'd run across it, given the rough and tumble way things work around here, but... since you just specifically asked for feedback... You very politely asked someone to verify they didn't cheat. That's not something that should be done as casually as you did, not because it necessarily violates some rule somewhere, but because it helps make the atmosphere on that page a little worse. If I were in Paulista's shoes, I would take offense. I probably would just have ignored you, rather than bring it here, but I would have been offended. Free advice, worth every penny. (and may God forgive me for acting like this is WQA). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam - I've retired from admin duties, so my opinion may have little weight, but in a situation where someone suspects canvassing or off-wiki coordination is occurring, how else could the matter be handled? As far as I can tell WCM is being as polite as is possible, and has (what appears to be) plausible grounds. I agree such questions do nothing to help the atmosphere, but the alternative seems to be not speaking out at all, which is equally unpalatable. Manning (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Manning, how is it plausible? The only reason for the accusation, it appears to me, is that Lecen and Paulista talk to each other on their talk pages. I see you recently had a message from Kat Walsh... if you two participate in the same discussion, how would you feel if I asked you for the same kind of verification? I'm not saying you can't ask a question like that here; I'm saying it's an accusation, and you have some kind of obligation to see if there's more to it than knowing they're friends. I've accused many people of being a sockpuppet or similar in my days here, but never casually, never without a pretty good reason to believe I'm right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my defence, I believe my query was based on plausible grounds as A) Paulista commented but had not partaken in the discussion B) Lecen appeared quite passionate about the name change and C) when I went to Paulista's talk page it was apparent they had collaborated often. At which point I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Either I say nothing and see the move request fail due to lack of a clear concensus or raise it politely as I can. I can see your point Floquenbeam and I thank you for your comments. However, also in my defence there has been evidence of the discussion becoming uncivil and doing my best to keep it on track. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheless if I have inadvertenly cause offence that was not my intention and for that I apologise sincerely. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Wee Curry, I never questioned your integrity and now I do believe you did not do it on purpose, I accept the apology, the same on my part, if I offended or misinterpreted you, sorry. I hope we can work together next time. Best of luck to you. Thank you Kim Dent-Brown, Floquenbeam, Manning Bartlett and Wee Curry. Best Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothest AN/I report ever? N^oformation ^Talk 06:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this was brought up before, but I think that someone needs to look at Selery. I was aware of Selery's attitude towards User:Michaeldsuarez before, but Selery has started to make attacks against this user as seen here, here, and even here. Selery has some explaining to do. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the first one is a blatant legal threat, and thus a violation of WP:NLT Princess Derpy (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor in question has been blocked before for "beyond the pale" personal attacks relating to this matter. Mythpage88 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite others to decide for themselves whether Fluttershy and the other editors involved with the GNAA article are more interested in improving the encyclopedia or trolling in such a way as to create a hostile environment for black people. Selery (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you linked to was simply maintenance, nothing controversial there. I'd also ask you check the message I left you, detailing why Wikipedia is not censored and that you (no offense here) do not have a valid case against the page. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am concerned about Fluttershy's editing of said page, off site he associates himself with troll groups "BWC" and "NCF" - how do we know he's not playing these games here as well? User:SweetieBelleMLP 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gather Princess Derpy and I have different senses of humor. Selery (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the edit summary particularly instructive. Along with Princess Derpy's user page construction, including this link to an attack site: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=next&oldid=472888721 (note well: that edit places a transparent link to an established malware site over most of Princess Derpy's page; clicking anything but the "Back" button after viewing that diff may infect your computer with malware. Is this group of people interested in improving the encyclopedia or attacking the project?) Selery (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No malware there, it's a simple joke. Princess Derpy (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "malware"? Mythpage88 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is also at korven dot sajt dot org, as per en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Princess_Derpy&diff=472925190&oldid=472924794 (note well: same as above) but I'm no longer interested. Selery (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selery, as controversial as the GNAA is, the group has repeatedly proven itself to be a notable organization. Plus, WP:NOTCENSORED. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess Derpy's userpage links to malware and, for an added bonus, uses a fake you-have-new-messages bar linking to a shock image. This, this and this are totally inappropriate. Get rid of it now. All from a person who created their account a week ago, whose first edit was to turn their userpage into a bluelink; I don't think this editor is here to improve the encyclopædia. Is it boomerang time? bobrayner (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Princess Derpy seems to be quickly proficient in policy, just a week after creating an account. I'm not saying that the user is a sockpuppet, but someone needs to look into that. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is worse, Fluttershy, Princess Derpy's malware attack or your defense of a self-referential troll article designed to create a hostile environment for black people? Selery (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say that the malware is worse. Also, despite my support for the GNAA, I was one of the few in a recent deletion review that voted to overturn the speedy close. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that. I only saw the offensive edit summary in your history. Thank you for supporting deletion of the GNAA article. Brohoof? Selery (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I supported the deletion of the article, but that I supported the fact that people have a right to continue the discussion without the immediate intervention and closure of the discussion by a administratior. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Princess_Derpy for disruptive editing. It's obvious by his/her user page that the editor's intent is not to contribute to Wikipedia but rather to create a hostile collaborative environment. I've also blanked his/her user page, though I'll leave the edit history live for anyone who wants to better understand my block rationale. Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! 'Cause they seemed to be totally legit, being interested in the 4chan culture and all.[33] Boo! Doc talk 01:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the blocking admin doesn't mind, I have deleted the user page in question. I can confirm it links to shock images or anyway inappropriate images thru a fake new message bar and I see no reason whatsoever to keep it laying around and potentially being disruptive to visitors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. Thank you for reviewing the matter. I left the page available after blanking because I didn't think the casual visitor would stumble across the edit history. Your approach works, too, since admins can still review the delete page to confirm the problem. Rklawton (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD is now requesting an unblock. I'll post my opposition to the request, but leave it to other admins to review. Note, though, that I would strongly object to unblocking this user. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD is now making a 2nd request to unblock. Note that the condition of the user page at the time of the block remained entirely inappropriate and the user is simply begging for more people to click on the link to a graphic image. Rklawton (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Selery has been warned before for personal attacks relating to GNAA. Last time I blocked him for two days, which was not long enough I think now for his disgraceful attack on TParis [34]. This time, for following Michaelsuarez around and posting a harrassing follow up to anything he posts, I've blocked for two weeks. Perhaps eventually, he will realise that being of the view that Wikipedia should have an article about this organisation is not the same as harrassing black people.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fun, another GNAA discussion to add to the list. Calabe1992 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Loverpony is indeffed as a confirmed sock of Princess Derpy. -- Pakaran 04:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The threats and personal attacks here seem pretty clear cut. The diff linked by Elen is way, way beyond the pale. Silverseren^C 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The legal threat alone should earn a block until retracted. This isn't really even boarderline...he used a lot of words but he did make a legal threat and specifically to admin. Dang this person seems so familiar.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easy enough to find all the socks. They're all talking about "Equestria". [35]. By the way, based on that rationale User:Roambassador is another likely sock according to his uploads [36] and his general behavior [37]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:SweetieBelleMLP above. It would appear that the brony are here - they may be more than one person and, despite all the cutie pie names, they're probably all blokes (no, I don't understand either).Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're saying, but I have no part in whatever group you are talking about. I came here because of a link in a /co/ thread and my past as a wikia editor. User:SweetieBelleMLP 18:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in focus

This whole sockpuppet thing is a side issue. What we should be discussing here is Selery's threats (likely legal threats) and extreme personal attacks against other users. Action needs to be taken here. The question is, what action should be taken? Silverseren^C 16:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.

The Wikipedia page about Jennifer Granholm has an in accurate claim without any citation or source. It seems to be a clear half-hearted attempt by someone to discredit a politician they do not support. It is quoted as follows

"While she was Governor, Site Selection magazine repeatedly named Michigan one of the top three states in the country for recruiting new businesses and projects. Michigan was also twice recognized by The Pew Center on the States as one of the best-managed states in the nation.[46] According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Michigan led the country in the improvement of job market conditions between 2009 and 2010.[47] However, over this same period, Michigan also reached its highest unemployment rate ever, and was the highest unemployment rate in the entire nation.[citation needed]"

The last sentence in that portion of the article is both none-sensicle and vague, there also does not appear to be any source material to support it. How can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.2.241 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excise the unsourced section, copy it to the talk page, explain why you deleted it and invite someone to restore it only if they can provide a reliable source. Manning (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or just delete it as unreferenced and go from there. But the talk page of the article is definitely where to go with this. Doc talk 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid cells (talk · contribs)

On USS Oak Hill (LSD-51), this user is continuously inserting unsourced, negative commentary concerning a homosexual "first kiss." I reverted them previously, but thought I'd ask whether it should just be reverted or other action be taken. Calabe1992 01:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I've advised Liquid cells about the three-revert rule and invited them to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is probably a matter for WP:ANEW (edit warring noticeboard) rather than this one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I now noticed that it appears he may have been using an IP, 72.218.244.248 (talk · contribs) as a sock. It it continues, I will take it to that noticeboard. Calabe1992 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just reported the user and his IP sock to AIV. Do you disagree that that was the easiest way of going about it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, since this isn't generic vandalism. Calabe1992 02:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gays are disgusting" seems like pretty generic vandalism to me. Not all vandalism is nonsense characters. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor didn't say that gays are disgusting, he said that some people made such comments, which is quite likely. The problem here is the edit-warring and the lack of a source for the edit. Nothing in the edits fits the narrow definition of vandalism, in fact it looks like good faith but misguided editing to me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source for the comment, so it has to go. P.S. The picture of two babes in uniform kissing is hot.[38] :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Normally I don't like to give those sorts of comments the dignity of a response, as I think they contribute to a hostile attitude towards female editors at Wikipedia, but it really is a nice photo. I wonder if it will become iconic in the same way that the visually similar V-J Day in Times Square did. But, off-topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually rather tame as kisses go. I just want to thank Cells for inadvertently bringing it to our attention. :) On a more somber note, Cells admits that it's original research, and he was presumably unaware that OR is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, admitting that it's original research is only half the battle - he's still arguing that the fact that it doesn't appear in reliable sources means that the sources are biased and that we're trying to "silence" him. The section shouldn't be closed just yet. I've got the page on my watchlist and will bring further developments here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the "reliable" sources actually are biased, there's nothing we can do about that. However, I would think that if there really was any significant grumbling about the kiss, then some reliable but conservative-leaning publication would have picked up on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above. Calabe1992 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't soil my PC by setting foot on Conservapedia, but supposing they have some sourcing standards, and supposing this event were covered, there's at least a possibility of a reliable source to support what Liquid Cells is talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was just before Christmas so they were probably too worried about the War on Christmas. Besides, a lot of the people in charge of such things seem to be old men or at least men and probably shared similar sentiments that you expressed earlier in this thread. I.E. It's okay to turn a blind eye (after watching the video 40 times) because it was Helen and Eve not Adam and Steve.... On a more serious albeit OT note, a public domain or otherwise free image would be useful in the article and may be available. And no I'm not referring to those same sentiments, just in general. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for one earlier, and also for a PD/CC video that I could then screencap, but found neither, unfortunately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the tub in question is a warship, and you run the risk of undue weight by placing too much emphasis on a single incident of two females kissing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user Woe90i is vandalizing pages. He is removing information from pages with each and every edit that he makes. Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivalik_class_frigate&action=historysubmit&diff=473073729&oldid=472263015
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076710&oldid=472526203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Air_Force&action=historysubmit&diff=473071349&oldid=472973946
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076058&oldid=472886274
All his history reveals such removal of content at his whims and fancies. Why no action has been taken against this vandal?

Tonnyn (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is the correct place for this in future. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now, please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarise yourself with the definition. The diffs you have posted here are not vandalism, the editor is simply removing content he believes to be inappropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is. If you don't want to see it that way, it will not. He is not simply removing it with full knowledge of what he is doing. Sourced content. Take the example of Shivalik class frigate displacement. Tonnyn (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At initial glance at least, it appears that the complainant (Tonnyn (talk · contribs)) is a sock of Fulldisplacement (talk · contribs), who is also a sock of another user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And you failed to notify the editor, which I've done for you. Although this whole discussion should be closed. The only purpose it might serve is to counsel a new editor (the OP).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Tonnyn (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sockmaster is apparently Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), who has a recurring history of edit-warring in articles about ships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about articles.Tonnyn (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Why Wikiepdia is so biased and racist? An issue is raised about articles being vandalized and you're discussing about something else. Can't you people address the issue?Tonnyn (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, who knows only to mock. Who made you Admin? You lack the basic qualities to be one.Tonnyn (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sockpuppets come in all races, colors, and previous conditions of servitude. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that one reason for this creation of socks itself is because of racism and prejuice within Wikipedia towards people who are not from Western nations, especially British. I have argued about Britain not being a great power and since that day I'm a a sock. So the ones who are not worthy to be inside are inside and the ones who are supposed to be inside are outside and socks. This is called racism. Pure racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI requested, others who know more specifics comment there. Calabe1992 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should have linked. Calabe1992 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Admins neglecting the vandalism by Woe90i? Is this not bias and racism?Tonnyn (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's none of the above. Calabe1992 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is. He vandalizes the pages that are not British. And write all stupid things remove info and some admins support him and vanquish who complaint. This is bias and this is racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is racism, because it's done to people who are not British. This is going on for a long long time. Need to put an end to such bias and racism in Wikiepdia.Tonnyn (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I revert people who aren't British. In fact, I'm not British. Am I a vandal? Calabe1992 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not like that. There is a british group that does such thing. They do it together. Tonnyn (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I don't believe you honestly think we'll buy that. Calabe1992 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is. They do protect the likes of Woe90i. It's done with high handedness. I know it very well. I experienced it. No rules are followed just remove you. That's how it works. Then that person is a sock and will not be able to complaint and his complaint is invalid. This is happening in Wikipedia.Tonnyn (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has a ship's tonnage got to do with racism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ton, apparently. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never know, he's -blocked and pending CU. Calabe1992 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's been shipped out, so any answer from him will have to come from his next load of cargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too? Brutus?Werestep (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAnnyong, Dave, etc do indulge in such gang activities. Dave is very famous Admin.Werestep (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he got back to port in record time. Is there some way to put his underlying IP in drydock for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God knows how many socks are out there -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Calabe1992 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a rangeblock would take out half of India. They do kinda come with a big neon light on the top saying 'sock'. Just tag 'em and bag 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a sock, I gave it a full on block. He can appeal through his master account (or not). Rklawton (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User is posing as "Crown Princess Victoria" (of Sweden) and has only edited articles about her and her family, adding remarkable genealogical info. I am not able to evaluate h sources, but have just done my best to clean up what I do not feel is relevant or notable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is SlipperySalmon a disruptive editor?

[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their stuff is pretty bizarre, that's for sure. Calabe1992 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks utter bollocks to me. Especially the Tenors one. Nothing being ref'd either. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa. What's your game? I'M THE SLIPPERY SALMON AND THESE ARE MY WATERS 04:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlipperySalmon (talk • contribs)

Your talk page is very odd. Calabe1992 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - this guy need indef'ing. He's just a vandal account. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His user page is telling as well. --Mollskman (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done deleted by me and blocked by Elen --Guerillero | My Talk 05:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good! We all know what happens when you take a fish out of water. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I believe he is a sock of User:LustyRoars. Elen of the Roads (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sensed a sock too, but suspected it was the same person related to the issue above with the image redirected to porn. Seems odd how 2 users would be utilising useless html at the same moment. Was either a WP:DUCK or a WP:DICK. Or both. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^Win. Calabe1992 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was the one that was shown in the porn image earlier. Calabe1992 05:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as a sock of LustyRoars (talk · contribs) and others. A previously-blocked IP has now been reblocked due to long-term abuse from these accounts - Alison ^❤ 05:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This this Coolkidxc might be related from the earlier issue above? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone revoke Mr. Salmon's talk page access please? Calabe1992 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by CharlieEchoTango. -- Atama頭 17:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is that of a pig and piglets and the caption refers to it as "Mohammed and his followers". Also, somehow the whole page has become one giant link to this image, making clicking any text links or edit history impossible. 75.37.27.141 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Whatever vandalism caused this was quite old; I checked the history back to mid December without finding the vandal. I'm about to go to bed, but if someone wants to look further and make sure they're blocked, be my guest. The page did show up with the described image while logged out; I purged the cached version. Pakaran 06:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a few thread above. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Someone added a top level DIV to redirect to a vulgar image. Unfortunately its not shown in the recent history. So I couldn't clean it up.

Please take a look : Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See a few threads above. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have a been a few of these recently, including one that just took us to AN/I continuously. Is this all the work of one editor/former editor, and if so who is it? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-IPs continually add artists to the "Notable users" section of FL Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), including false citations in order to make the added information look credible. I took the issue to VPP and asked what the policy was for dealing with sneaky insertion of false citations. It was suggested that I take the issue here, however the page was then protected (log), so the issue was (temporarily) resolved.

This is not simple vandalism (and I took the issue here instead of AIV) because:

1. There is an edit notioce stating that addition of artists to the notable users section must be "verifiable via a reliable source".
2. There are large comments in the source of the page specifically saying that artists added to the notable users section must have "a reference to an independent source mentioning the artist's use of FL Studio" and directing editors to the talk page.
3. An editor who knows how to use a <ref> tag is experienced enough to know that this type of edit results in unsourced information appearing on the surface like sourced information.

Initially, Anon-IPs would simply add artists to the notable users section and to the lead of the article—this is pretty common on articles with sections for "notable people". After consensus on the talk page was reached that each mention of a notable artist must be independently sourced, IP editors then began adding false citations to their edits. Most of these edits come from different IPs, so user warnings are not effective in stopping them. Recently I have started leaving "final warning" templates on the talk pages of Anon-IPs who have continued these vandalous edits, however the same IP is rarely used again.

It seems as though one or more people are watching the article and editing from different IPs (not realizing that it is terribly obvious what they are doing). Here are some relevant diffs (there are many more; I've included only ones with false citations): [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Also, these edits are give a large red error in the references section (example here).

The IP addresses from the above diffs are:

• 66.57.168.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.102.83.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.90.111.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.242.228.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 74.68.143.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.192.19.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.28.238.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.29.130.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—danhash (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider limiting edits from this IP only to registered users. Originally it was blocked as an open proxy. Later it got unblocked and identified as an open proxy. The user claims he/she is not trying to post anonymously and that he/she is unable to log in to the Wikipedia account.

The issue is that this IP has been doing disruptive edits. For example in iCloud the user keeps posting information as fact but sources to rumor. I already removed the information twice and indicated in the edit summary that encyclopedic information has to be based on fact not rummor. The user keeps posting back the same information.

Also the user has done disruptive editing in other articles like removal of information and writing nonsense

I ask for requring an account as only some of the edits are disruptive, it appears more than one person is editing Wikipedia from that ip with different purposes. The edits lack summary.

CharlesDayton 16:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor notified. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a closed proxy operated by Zscaler - so it will be multiple individuals on local area networks appearing as one IP. What I can do is the equivalent of schoolblock it - editors with an account can log in, but anonymous editing is prohibited. It's a big private company, employees probably shouldn't be editing (and intermittently vandalising) Wikipedia on the company's $Canadian anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CharlesDayton 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

118.136.202.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in a long-term pattern of editing that ignores Wikipedia guidelines and makes unnecessary work for other editors, but has been completely unresponsive to attempts to deal with this situation. This user is a fairly frequent editor (and a decent proportion of their edits appear to be constructive ones), but has a troubling pattern of failing to respond in any way to messages and warnings on their User talk: page. In fact, this editor has never edited any page in any of the "talk" namespaces. The editor also has a consistent pattern of never using edit summaries. In short, the editor apparently is either determined to avoid interaction with the rest of the Wikipedia community, or unaware of how to conduct such interaction.