THC Science

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Reso lute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.
This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were the grounds for deletion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I see it was one file deleted out on a template discrepancy; after being flagged I switched out one template for a more precise one ("PD-work of Soviet government," I recall) and Our Hero deleted it anyway, even though the template was absolutely valid. Other of my uploaded files were merely mentioned in a generally snarky and unspecific comment. It was 100% "payback"... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: Main Page files that exist on Commons are usually protected by bot these days. {{Uploaded from Commons}} is only used in rare cases. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never interacted with Giano much, but in general I'm not much in favor of messing around with someone else's files; especially when they're not around to address any questions. If it were a matter of improving an article - sure, but I can't fathom that en.wp is so depraved of disk space that there's a need to go about deleting things just for the fun of it. — Ched : ? 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly disapprove of this Commons bashing. Anyway, the point here is that the uploader gets to choose whether to upload to Wikipedia or to Commons - except, that is, according to the WP:Image use policy, a gallery of indiscriminate images should be moved to Commons. These images are not AFAIK indiscriminate, so there is no mandate to move them to Commons. There's no prohibition on public domain images at WP. An editor can legitimately upload to both projects, thereby hedging their bets regarding which one will be more infected by deletionists in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you study the way the Xandlerliptak case was handled, you will discover that commons has no ethical intregrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant notes: Users of an image are notified when it is up for deletion on Commons, by User:CommonsNotificationBot. Images are re-uploaded to En on request by User:Commons fair use upload bot as fair use candidates. Wikipedia has every opportunity to recover files that are deleted on Commons. I don't object to users uploading Commons-compatible files to enwiki if they find it more convenient or don't know any better, but trying to suppress a move just because Commons is better at detecting copyright violations is trying to do an end-run around the licensing resolution. Dcoetzee 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a really impressive misrepresentation of why {{keep local}} exists, which Risker summarizes accurately above. Personally, I have no problem with my images (over 400 of them now) being hosted at commons. But lets not pretend that there aren't very legitimate issues facing Commons which led to things like this. Besides, there is nothing preventing someone from copying such files to Commons, but the request that the local copy not be deleted in the process is fair and legitimate. Resolute 02:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone can name one file deleted at Commons which is not a copyvio and was in use or would have been kept at enwp, I will undelete it myself. Such an outcome is unacceptable. If there is a personal vendetta going on, keep local is just avoiding the conflict so the same Commons users can go on to hurt others - it's not a solution. If visibility of changes are an issue, another bot can be set up to notify people about new versions. Keeping two versions of files will just end up doubling the work of anyone who wants to make updates to files or file description pages. Merging the divergent histories of thousands of file description pages is not my idea of fun. Dcoetzee 09:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some months ago, Centpacrr uploaded a photo of himself, and Fastily deleted it, then refused to talk about it. Centpacrr had to go through all manner of hoops on commons to get it reinstated. It shouldn't have to be that way. That kind of thing is another reason I find commons wanting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets respect the wishes of the uploader unless there is a good reason not to --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, I do not see any problem here. An image CAN be uploaded to Commons and at the same time kept locally. This will protect it locally from possible improvement of the description which can be done on Commons but not seen here, but otherwise I see no problems (assuming the image itself is not problematic).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all if users uploaded to Commons they would be notified if one of their files was changes. And you can even mark "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" on Commons so all uploaders have to do is to add the files they want to monitor to their watch list. You can add hundreds of files in a few seconds if you want so the argument "I do not get a notice if file is deleted or changed" is not valid. Just move all the files to Commons add the files to the watch list and then delete. Then you get a notice when your files are changed. It is easy and simple!

And why should uploads have a veto? If I create an article I can't add a "Keep your hands away from my article!"-template.

The problem with having the same file in two places (or more) is that if there is a copyright issue you risk that all versions of the file is deleted. I have found several files on lb-wiki and ms-wiki where the original file on en-wiki was deleted years ago as a copyvio. And if someone corrects the description it will not be visible everywhere. So you risk that someone reads an out dated and pehaps wrong description.

The only logic and wise thing to do is to move all free files to Commons and to make sure that there is enough editors on Commons to watch and "nurse" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two TfDs on the template - and the most recent was just last year - had strong consensus the template was valid and should stay. Its text "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." has already been tested by the community and found to be acceptable. It has no restriction on an image being available at Commons. The OP here gave no reason why the template ought to be removed or his wishes no longer respected, and I can see no reason to stop doing so even if the user has turned their back or simply left. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong concensus? Like a few hundred users saying "Keep it"? Or a handfull of users that do not like Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make false assumptions. I like Commons just fine, but believe we should respect the uploader's wishes unless there is a compelling reason not to. My question at the top of this thread – "Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag?" – remains unanswered. If there is a compelling reason to remove the tags for these particular images, please let me know, because I have not heard it, despite specifically asking. Again, please do not assume that everyone who respects uploaders' preferences has anything against Commons. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dicussion still ongoing? There are enaugh issues with commons to respect the wishes of the uploader. In this case our featured content should not be at the mercy of the throublemakers at commons. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove "at Commons" and insert "from Germany", "from France", "from China" etc. you could probably be called a racist. I thought that the idea of wiki was to work together and improve and not spread hate... Please visit Commons and talk to some users. You would probably find out that not all users on Commons are dicks. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure - and there are some fantastic contributors producing the finest work. But there is a hardcore set of editors that ruin it. In the case of the editor whose pcitures we talk about who had pictures used in featured content overwritten spoiling featured content. Also the reputation of commons is sullied by virtual exhibitionists who like flashing porn at every impossible corner. Agathoclea (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overwriting files - with the exception of the uploader's consent - is generally against the policy of Commons and should be immediately reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, if you go looking for nudity or sexuality images, you will find them on Commons. Yes, you may even find them where you didn't expect them, because the images are correctly named and categorised to reflect their content. There is no conspiracy to "flash porn at every impossible corner", there is however a desire to not have things deleted simply because people don't like them. As for the overwriting files thing - yes, it happens occasionally, but if it weren't possible, surely that would mean all featured articles on en.wp should be fully protected, nay, globally locked to prevent ALL editing, including by admins. It's a wiki, sometimes you get vandalism, either intentional or unintentional. You revert it and get on with life. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone overwrite we can revert and we can protect the important files so that ip-users and brand new users can't edit them. We can even protect high-risk / high-use files so only admins can edit them. But we can't protect all files. Files on en-wiki are also vandalized and sometimes it take years to find out. That is how it is on a wiki. The best would be if 20, 200 or 2.000 good users would visit Commons more often and give a hand. And if you spot a problem feel free to make suggestions (blocks, protections edit filters ...). --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that deletion discussions on Commons seem to be have a lot of random closures that seem to be based on ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT rather than copyright or scope. Such abberences do not inspire confidence in Commons processes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep local" is just a compromise to appease editors who complain when their images are moved to commons. If the editor is retired, the only reason for the template is moot, and the images should just be moved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons says "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons." What am I missing here? 28bytes (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't forbid that files are moved to Commons unless there is a copyright issue. You could equest that the local file is not deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Well, "moved" implies deletion here. "Copied" is fine, anyone has the right to copy any free images to Commons. (Although, of course, if anyone prefers their work not be hosted on Commons, it would be courteous to respect that preference.) 28bytes (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be the license violation. I prefer the my pictures should not be used commercially, however, I do not reasonably expect that anybody would respect this my wish since the license states otherwise. Though I personally would probably not copy a file on Commons if the file page here says that the uploader has a strong opinion on the matter, even if it is legally sound.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the license violation? 28bytes (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To require that the file does not get uploaded on Commons. If the file has been uploaded anywhere under CC BY-SA and does not have issues, it can be uploaded on Commons irrespectively of what the uploader thinks about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, requiring it is not permitted, although requesting it certainly is. I think your approach of choosing not to copy an image against the uploader's wishes is a very responsible one. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone only allows files on Wikipedia under the condition that they are not moved to Commons, we already have a perfectly valid template for that: {{di-replaceable fair use}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on people, why is this even an issue? Have people nothing better to do? I thought we have backlogs of thousands and thousands of transferable images, whose uploaders have stated no objections against transfer, more than the transferrers will ever be able to handle? Can't people just go and work on a few of those, and leave bothering about those few special ones for later? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#AuthorityTam Nobody Ent 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated, AuthorityTam waited for the dust to settle on this ANI, and has now resumed similar conduct.[1] (The addition in the section "RfC: Reinstatement in lead section" dishonestly quotes me; my response is here.) Now that he has resumed editing, AuthorityTam should provide a more appropriate response regarding his conduct, and the previous suggested courses of action should be further considered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has shown a clear and on-going pattern of disruptive behaviour in editing, especially in regards to several editors (Jeffro and BlackCab). As I predicted in the last, interminably long, but never-solved ANI incident, that the same case would be brought back again and again, once a month, until some sanctions are imposed. I have been involved in neither dispute, except for the ANI recaps. I therefore propose a one week block from editing Wikipedia for AuthorityTam, or a topic ban of a minimum 30 days' length from all articles even tangentially related to the Jehovah Witness religion for the same. Each incident in itself may not warrant a block, but, pursuant to "civil POV pushing" (an essay somewhere on here), all the shit together more than justifies one, as it establishes a pattern which the editor does knot seem to acknowledge is disruptive (that it is, is evidenced by being dragged to ANI ad nauseam). (Edit: this fits the very definition of a "preventative block", as it seems that this behaviour continues like the Energizer Bunny.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but can not see the deal here. It is making a big case out of something that isn't. He quoted Jeffro, and wanted to use Jeffro's statement as a reason for editing the article. It could be stoped by reverting the edit, and make a ordinary discussion in the talk page, not reopening this case. I suggest to at least shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it. I am sure it will be more discussions regarded and including AutTam, but as I've stated before, the article need opinionholders challenging some of the existing one at the talk page, as it appears very few of the contributers can keep a completely neutral tone when it comes to the topic (even though, some of the users at least try). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There was no consensus on the last ANI and little contribution from the community at large -- just lots of squabbling amongst three editors (all of whom could improve the collegiality and civility of their interaction style). Block all 3, ban all 3, or block or ban none. Refer to WP:DR. Nobody Ent 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously tried simply reverting his irrelevant tendentious comments about other editors (namely, me) from user Talk. He restores them, and then complains even more. This behaviour was also mentioned at the previous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, this is no closer to a resolution than when it started. I understand everyone has the right of reply, but you guys are just going in circles here, and making it extremely difficult for anyone outside the dispute to determine exactly what the "problem" is and what you want done about it. The admin action needed here at this point is for someone uninvolved to step in, hat most of the above, and try to keep the discussion focused. Or, even better, just close it as I don't see where any action is likely to be taken at this point. Everyone just try to play nicely together, m'kay? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand about 90% of the circular discussion has been archived, so thanks to whoever did that. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[non admin yawn] Again? - I don't watch the page, or any of those pages, but it has spilled over into non-JW topic areas before. As the last time it seems that the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors are as bad or worse than the one apparently pro-JW editor, as illustrated by the disproportionate amount of noise from the two anti-JW/ex-JW editors on the last attempt to get the pro-JW editor banned at ANI. This latest one simply has the pro-JW editor noting they tried to get him banned at ANI, and the anti-JW saying "Another lie" (¿En serio? Is that a WP:BOOMERANG I see?) If it's anything admin action shouldn't be one sided, it should be for all 3, e.g. JW-topic blocks for 1 month and warmly invite contributions to the wealth of non-JW articles on WP needing attention... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an "anti-JW" editor. I'm a "non-JW" editor; I don't consider their beliefs any more irrational than the beliefs of other religions. Aside from that, he did lie. When I said that no one had tried to have him banned, that was in fact the case. 3 days later, I did conditionally agree with a suggestion by another editor that if AuthorityTam is unable to modify his behaviour, a topic ban may be in order. AuthorityTam selectively quoted part of that statement, ignoring the order of events, to make it appear that I was 'trying to have him banned' and that I had previously lied about it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all the bad blood swirling around between a small group of editors, I don't see any hope for a resolution/reconciliation in that regard. The ultimate goal is the overall improvement of the JW articles, not the appeasement of certain editor's hurt egos. So I think the unfortunate result is that if you all want to continue editing the JW articles, then you're going to have to deal with each other, like it or not...or everyone is going to be looking at a topic ban in the future. Perhaps being able to provide evidence from this point forward that you did not further personalize the dispute may prevent that from happening if/when this is brought up at ANI again. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within half an hour of AuthorityTam resuming editing (after an absence that coincided with the ANI while closer attention might be paid to his editing behaviour), he returned to the same petty retributive (and dishonest) behaviour as before. He's clearly not interested in 'playing nicely', and he simply ignored input from other editors at the previous ANI who confirmed that his behaviour is inappropriate.

It is not the case that only three editors complained in the previous ANI. Several editors agreed there are problems with AuthorityTam's behaviour, and an independent editor made several suggestions.

It is not the case that it is not clear what the problem is or what action should be taken. I stated fairly clearly that AuthorityTam should cease commenting about other editors at article Talk pages. Other editors suggested that a topic ban may be in order, and I agree that may be suitable if he is otherwise unable to acknowledge his inappropriate behaviour and cease it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Jeffro77 notified me]As I have mentioned previously I couldn't still find what is so wrong with AuthorityTam's editing, other than shouting and crying for crucify him. In fact when I compared some edit history of all these three involved editors, ironically I found that AuthorityTam never used any of those type of harsh/debasing words that the other two editors used. So it seems to me that the main problem here is a long time discomfort towards AuthorityTam by the other two editors, because he have won/Wikipedia have won many of the debates involving the other two editors in those related talk pages. Also whenever these other editors express their discomfort in talk pages, AuthorityTam gives evidence of their own same mistake by posting back talk pages and then goes own silent. This may screw up the other two editors but in fact it gives the point that the accusing editors should try to improve first before accusing other. As some other editor suggested we need to shut down this case until it really is needed to reopen it.--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'd be interested to see the diffs of the supposedly "harsh/debasing words" Fazilfazil (a pro-JW editor defending another pro-JW editor) is accusing me of. There is no particular 'discomfort' about AuthorityTam 'winning debates' about article content; no track record is kept of how many 'debates' AuthorityTam has 'won', but even if his views are accepted more frequently than those of others (though I'm not aware that's the case), it has nothing to do with the complaints raised here. I have stated quite clearly that I object to AuthorityTam's frequent irrelevant pointy comments at article Talk pages about editors he believes to be former members of JWs (this factor of bias is in fact the determining criteria for AuthorityTam's expressions of contempt). (Even at the previous ANI AuthorityTam again presented his specious 'evidence' [a claim based on an ambiguous edit from 7 years ago] that I'm a former member though he's been explicitly told I have no status with the organisation.) It is not the case that AuthorityTam merely defends himself at Talk rather than starting problems, such as he did with his oblique disingenuous claim that BlackCab's removal of content that violated WP:FORUM was in some way 'interesting'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to waste the time with digging out those words, I have posted some in the previous discussion. First of all although you frequently claim that you are not a former JWs, your style of editing appears to be those typical among self-claiming former Witnesses. Not only me, many other editors have expressed this implication. For one reason, it is very difficult for a common person to understand the deep teachings of JWs unless he have studied the basic Bible teachings with them. So my intuition is that you mostly use Watchtower library (for others sake: which contains all JWs publications in digital format) and come up either as a support to user:BlackCab's interpretations or being silent when he have an irrelevant point. It is not typical among an atheist to be only attacking on a particular religion. Since you and BlackCab are the frequent opposers towards AuthorityTam (in many cases I can see his arguments finally proves to be correct) it is of no wonder that he show other editors about former witness bias. Another thing is sometime you take silly things and explicitly claim that other editor lied (I believe even once towards me though I ignored it) but they might was never intended a lie. I don't want to involve in this discussion much since I feel its a waste of time and irritating. I would advice you to calm down and raise this issue if AuthorityTam showed obvious incivility towards you with a specific clear evidence. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated previously, I have relatives in the religion and am closely familiar with it. However, I do not owe any editor any such explanation. The claim that I simply try to support BlackCab is ridiculous because I've edited Wikipedia for several years longer than him. I have already provided evidence of AuthorityTam's improper behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Fazilfazil reply, who seems also quite frustrated, I would like to encourage both of you to assume good faith WP:AGF. I expressed my viewpoint of the situation on AuthorityTam' Talk page. User_talk:AuthorityTam#You.27re_maybe_not_aware_of..._.2B. However, Jeffro77 immediately started to reply on my personal message to AT, which I felt unwelcome. AuthorityTam do not answer so far on my post, although I assume that he perhaps read it. Originally, I wanted only notice him about some pages and summarize my viewpoint on the subject. But when Jeffro77 arrived, I tried to serve there as mediator and suggested solution. Jeffro77 felt the situation otherwise. --FaktneviM (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF doesn't apply when the editor has all but proclaimed that they are working in bad faith with a certain section of the Wikipedia community. Although, as I point out, my own interactions with AT have been nothing but cordial (in fact, receiving support from him) because I (1) don't work often in the area, and (2) haven't proposed anything that pissed him off or that got me on his "shit list", so to speak, based on the previous AN/I, he won't respond until this AN/I is over and has blown over, and he'll be back up to antagonizing Jeff and BlackCab (aka LtSally!) and this case will be back to AN/I (as, during the last AN/I, he ceased editing according to the same pattern). I have a spidey-sense that this will eventually be attempted to be escalated to arbitration. Fazil: stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. This is not about winning debates or scoring points or editors' possible former religious affiliations or "WP:TRUTH", it is about building an encyclopedia. I find it incredibly hard to WP:AGF when faced with a series of posts that so clearly demonstrate the battleground mentality.St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnChrysostom: I don't know AuthorityTam much as we met rarely. In most situations I felt it similar like you. His conduct is focused on content and he is cordial. I do not expect it, but if he would like to persistently continue with this non-responding and later attacking style, some temporary restriction of editing 'Talk pages' could be reasonable. But this resumed ANI is not the case. Single edit is not adequate for any action. Thus the ANI should be terminate. // Fazilfazil: I would like to see more co-operation within JWs articles. Hence continuous speculations if User:Jeffro77 is apostasy or not are not useful at all. He specifically wrote here “I never formally identified as a JW”, which I believe to be the exceptional truth. This express is common for those who leaved from the congregation during Bible Study with Witnesses or meanwhile in state of being Unbaptised publisher. That is similar if he raised in JW family and not identified himself with it. In every case that is not important. Some editors may decide practice shunning on Jeffro and BlackCab (like AuthorityTam' 3rd person comments), but generally "division" of editors to pro-JW group and ex-JW or anti-JW group (such division of editors is invention by the two mentioned above and cause unpleasant contact amongst articles' editors). Hence I suppose that another talking on this matter is not useful. Here is the irony that BlackCab since his start on Wikipedia openly said so and never hide it. I respect him more for that. I also believe that both of them are sincere with their motives on editing Wikipedia. It is said that BlackCab at least tried to solve common issues which I raised, while Jeffro often simply dismiss all as irrelevant. However, despite of that, it is unlikely that they edit this topic if they want to be evil only. So some mutual agreement is hardly to do, but it is 'must have'. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that AuthorityTam's "conduct is focused on content and he is cordial." If that were the case, this ANI or the last one would not have been raised. Specific statements made by AuthorityTam at article Talk about other editors have already been cited at this and the last ANI, and it is that behaviour that I explicitly requested that he cease.

I have never summarily dismissed any specific editor's comments as irrelevant merely on the basis of who made them. Where there is any ambiguity, I have always provided a reason why something is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment {Jeffro77 notified me} After reviewing the edit in question, I cannot for the life of me figure out what is so appalling in the edit that it brings us here to yet another ANI. My only conclusion is that this must be some feeble attempt at character assassination or some ill advised smear campaign. Unless I am looking at the wrong edit, I find nothing offensive in AT's edit at all and do in fact find this ANI to be the more offensive occurrence. Here is the edit I think is being addressed, please let me know if I have the wrong one: :::"The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk)3:33 am, 29 April 2012, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)" ~~I am completely at a loss for finding anything offensive in that edit, so, exactly why are we here if not just for the purpose of stirring the pot? Willietell (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Comment Having found the edit in question, I see only an editor defending himself against an accusation of being a liar. Perhaps if the editor who raised the ANI doesn't wish for such evidence to be presented, them he should AGF and cease calling other editors dishonest, thus eliminating the need for a response that he may find offensive. In short, Play Nice, because your own offensive words(calling other editors a liar) may come back to haunt you when they present evidence to the contrary. Willietell (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was not 'defending himself against an accusation of being a liar'; the misleading selective quote itself constituted a lie, with no regard to the actual order of events or my actual conditional statement. I see no reason why I should put up with that, particularly when the statement was appended to 'discussion' that had ostensibly ended weeks ago. The underlying pattern of behaviour—that AuthorityTam uses any opportunity he can to attempt to discredit editors he believes to be former JWs—has not ceased. This matter will be considered unresolved until that occurs. As noted by JohnChrysostom above, AuthorityTam's response so far has simply been to 'lay low' during and shortly after the ANI process, and then return to the previous behaviour; he did this at the last ANI, and also did the same thing a couple of years ago when an admin instructed him to strike false statements about me at several AfDs (which he failed to do).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incivility from Hearfourmewesique~~
Someone needs to inform User:Hearfourmewesique that edit summary comments like this violate WP:CIV. This comes on the heels of a number of similar comments that aren't exactly in the spirit of CIV, as when he reacted to my removal of material plagiarized from another website without compliance with that site's license by citing citing WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, and telling me that I should've paraphrased the material myself, even though I had already told him that I hadn't seen the episode. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much more concerned about the editor's understanding of copyright than I am about some prickly edit summaries. Nevertheless, that particular issue has been resolved (the material lifted from Wikia has been rewritten), so unless there's evidence that Hearfourmewesique makes a habit of this then this is basically just a case of two editors who don't get along (and, based on the ANI last week, are both partially to blame). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply had it with certain editors, some of whom are veteran and some of whom are even admins, that think that their job consists solely of sending other editors to "do their homework", forgetting that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I apologize for overstepping the WP:CIVIL boundaries, though.
Side note: as noted on my talk page, I paraphrased the "lifted" text mainly by looking at it and using basic rewriting skills, something Nightscream could have done as well – the Wikia description is so detailed that it can suffice without having to watch the episode. Just more excuses, causing more frustration. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether Nightscream could have fixed it (and paraphrasing a huge chunk of someone else's text is not the easiest skill in the world, nor the most ethical in many cases). Editors should not be introducing text with permission / copyright problems in the first place, under any circumstances. While attracting and keeping contributors is vital, failing to respect copyright to the letter can kill the project and has to take precedence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what is Wikipedia if not a collection of paraphrased chunks of other people's text? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris' point is that the text in question wasn't paraphrased.
Regarding the other matter, apology accepted; I hope we can continue to collaborate more positively from here on in. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~user:Doktorbuk - removal of cited content and 3RR violations~~

User retired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see the history of Sandwell Council election, 2012. User:Doktorbuk keeps reverting sourced, neutral content without discussion in violation to the 3RR policy. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instructive indeed. Bear in mind that Doktorbuk has been editing in good standing for eight years when you read the following interactions:
revert vandalism, made NPOV

Please stop removing referenced material from the Sandwell article. Please read WP:VANDALISM.

Undid revision 489936321 by Doktorbuk (talk) vandalism

This, for a trivial little spat whereby Doktorbuk removed a Daily Mirror-referenced bit of local drama where the local Labour party accused the Tories of "sabotage" for running a candidate with the same name as the Labour one on grounds of wording and weak sourcing. Note no talk page interaction at all: straight to declarations of vandalism and then off to ANI. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify any other recent interaction malfunctions between Lugnuts and the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Tumperwad isn't applying a neutral point of view towards me, due to a recent discussion he's raised. I urge another admin to look at this, and ignore his bias. Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The thing is, Lugnuts, I really don't think you should have brought this here. Have you spent time looking at United Kingdom local elections, 2012 ? You will see "Details" linked to individual articles. Not one of these contains links to the kind of stories you are trying to include in Sandwell's article. You will also note that, despite your best efforts to create stub articles, they all include full candidate details for each and every ward. This is because, after an AfD process, the community ensured that any article has to contain enough encyclopedic material to justify its existence. I fear you are not after creating these articles to contain full ward-by-ward details with each and every candidate, and therefore are creating more work for the UK politics community than is necessary.

With regards to the article itself, I note you were probably vandalising Wikipedia in the first place by creating the article. If we go to the history, we see this - [2]. The article is incomplete - with only one ward and the 'trivial' story linked to it, which I contend to be against RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NPOV, as I have said in each and every edit summary. You have ignored my edit summaries. You included a blank Liberal Democrat candidate - against the processes carried out by the UK politics and election community. You did not bother to seek the other nominated candidates - I contend you did this because you ONLY wanted to include the trivial news story. I suggest that you have no interest in the UK local elections, as your contributions show you don't, and therefore started the article just to make some kind of 'point' about the candidates or the comedic nature of the story. Are you a member of the Labour or Conservative parties? Why did you include the words "election sabotage" in the article?

I am one member of small team of UK politics and election community members who are very proud and protective of the work we do each year to ensure that the Wikipedia articles on each and every British election is to a high standard. I asked you on your talk page to point me to any other article which links to this kind of campaign event or story. I doubt you will answer this request, or find an example. The community strives to keep these articles NPOV. You are striving to do the exact opposite. I am not guilty of vandalism. I spent this morning typing each and every candidate into the article to make sure it reached the minimum standards expected by Wikipedia - you have spent the day causing minor acts of vandalism, creating stub articles with no intent to fill in the details of candidates nominated or complete the 'index' article at United Kingdom local elections, 2012, and submitting a vandalism request for WP:POINT-y reasons,.

In summary, I am trying to avoid UK election articles having links to POV material, RECENTISM/NOTNEWS stories, and general trivia. I therefore do not agree that I am a vandal as charged doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included the term "election sabotage" as that was the term reported in the press. I wont insult your intelligence by explaining that one. Hardly trivial at all - this is just the sort of hook that DYK would cream for. Lugnuts (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept "election sabotage" from the Daily Mail. Also, maybe Doktorbuk broke the 3R line, but so did you. This minor content issue is not for ANI, and I have removed the content in light also of Thumperward's notes above. Such claims need rigorous sourcing, not tabloid articles. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the word "sabotage" as that was giving Doktorbuk such a problem and it's cited from multiple sources. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was an election in California in 2006 where two people named Kathy Finley both ran. Though that election was for an at-large position, and they weren't really running "against" each other since there were enough open seats for both of them. The news stories were amused about it at the time. This one seems to have more potential since it's possible that it was done on purpose. ☮Soap☮ 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Soap. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Doktorbuk, despite having "8 years of experience" on WP, is now removing references from articles without any reason why. See here and here. How is that acceptable? The correct answer is that it is not. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, it is worth noting at this point that you have not answered any of the direct questions I have put on your talk page. You have conducted yourself on my talk page with uncivility, goading and sarcasm. I spent this morning finding ward details and candidates for the forthcoming election, including finding a direct source to the specific council's SOPN - what constructive work towards the project have you done? doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've started all those articles you couldn't be bothered to do, for one. I don't respond to bullying demands from you on my talkpage. Please be more civil. Please explain why you are removing references? This vandalism is not acceptable and you should know better. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing signs of not reading my comments on your talk page. I explained why there were so many gaps - we prefer to source all wards and each and every candidate, following an AfD process at which a stub article was considered not encyclopedic material. Hence the project (with only a limited amount of editors and resources) prefers to spend time on getting an article right, and doing it slowly, than getting dozens of articles wrong, quickly. As for this claim of removing citations, I have to point out that I REPLACED, not REMOVED, providing the article with the specific link to the council's SOPN. doktorb _words^deeds 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you REMOVED the references. Is the ref there with your edit? No. That's removal. Disgusting that someone who claims to have 8 years worth of experience on here can't grasp that. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced one reference with another - my replacement was the specific council's SOPN, which is relevant to the specific article. doktorb _words^deeds 10:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coda

I have chosen to retire from the project rather than continue with this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 14:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I looked forward to discussing this with you. Obviously, you have nothing to hide by disappearing.... Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means he has nothing to hide, Chris. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Disruptive IP editor~~
90.218.255.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
A couple of weeks ago I reported this IP editor here, who I suspected was deliberately adding false information or at best just guessing, and was advised to keep an eye on it. Since then the dubious additions have continued and all messages have been ignored (I tried asking them to just reply on their talk page to confirm if they'd read them and got no response), the only reaction to messages is that they stop or slow down for a day or so and then gradually pick up and continue exactly as before. This latest edit appears to be false (explained why in my revert). The persistent style errors have continued too, although these are less harmful they are also an indication that this editor is either wilfully ignoring or unable to understand the messages they are receiving.
This is a long-term problem, I think this person has been editing like this for over a year across various IPs (see here and here) but even taking just the current IP, they have over 1,000 edits since February. Even if I AGF that the errors were not deliberate, an editor who cannot understand or will not even acknowledge concerns about their edits is disruptive and I think at least a WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary. January (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a proponent of blocks for incompetent editors who are highly incommunicative. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Drmies perspective, although I'm a failure at blocking. I've been in many ANIs this week and have yet to block anyone ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to AIV. Or ask Sitush for someone who needs to be blocked; I think he has a hit list. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough vandalistic edits to be considered a vandal. Plenty of legitimate edits. Doc talk 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we can allow them a few vandalistic edits because they also make edits which look legitimate. As with the edit I highlighted above, it sometimes takes a bit of research to tell which is which and I'm concerned that some of the false edits are going unnoticed because they look innocuous at first sight. This, which I'm pretty sure is false (Ross King describes himself as "from Knightswood" in this interview stayed in the article for a week. January (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that edits like this are not good, as they introduce things into referenced material where the reference does not support it. Doc talk 06:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption is still disruption. Once all possible good faith solutions have been exhausted, the block is the only tool we have left, and I like having it on the table at ANI rather than being acted upon unilaterally. I'm not convinced that adding one more template is going to have any more effect than the 15 or so recent and existing ones on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~my user page~~

RESOLVED

page unprotected, no consensus for ban Nobody Ent 10:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

hello. my userpage has been locked by user:salvio giuliano, who claims that an ornamental userbox and cock picture is disruptive. i find this claim disingenuous, since at least one administrator has a "Big Schlong Barnnstar", complete with a picture of a nice chunky cock, on his userpage. the user box is ornamental and refers to an encyclopedia dramatica policy known as [[ED:SATAN]], and was removed under a claim that it is disruptive. the userbox is humorous, and i fail to see how it is disruptive. i believe the userbox was removed because it alludes to satanism, which not a lot of people care for. as for the cock, i do not see how my fifty penis post, a reference to the "fifty hitler post" internet meme, is considered disruptive, when the "Big Schlong Barnnstar" is not. it is my opinion that my userpage was under special scrutiny due to my off-wiki activities, which should have no bearing here. while i am here, i would like to request that all deleted revisions of my userpage be restored, so that people can see how harmless it is/was. i requested their deletion because one of the revisions links to my doppleganger account, which was done by accident following a sockpuppet investigation, but there is no point now in hiding my identity. :\ -badmachine 01:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed before that the userbox is easily offensive to people who follow the religion, since as you say, it was intended as a joke rather then a serious declaration of a religious affiliation. What they do in other places doesn't concern us. The fact you still don't seem to understand this, or at least acknowledge it as a concern doesn't speak well for your behaviour here not being disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that is a nice excuse, but i believe one of the primary tenets of satanism is "do as thou wilt". i dont think there is a single documented instance of any satanist being offended by my userbox. in addition, from wikipedia's own article on the Church of Satan: "Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.". i do not see any credible claim that any satanist would be offended by my userbox. -badmachine 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the first illustration you mentioned could be retitled, "As thou do wilt." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wut? -badmachine 02:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh god it took me waaaaaaay too long to get it. :D -badmachine 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am seeing the term "low level trolling" thrown about. to me, this looks like a euphemism for i don't like it. as for the claim that a fucking My Little Pony userbox and a userbox stating that i endorse the activities of the GNAA is 'prima facie evidence of trolling' (paraphrased), that claim is absurd on its face. -badmachine 03:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there was an argument there, not just a dislike. Statistically, the combination of a GNAA and a MLP user box is likely to end up in an indefinite block, that seems to be established. I hope you're the exception. Dr "Rainbow Dash" mies (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't really "not like" anything you've posted to your page. I don't find Satanism offensive in the least. I'm no huge fan of looking at dicks, but I wouldn't say they offend me either. This is purely about the apparent use of such things to provoke an emotional response or otherwise disrupt. The presence of the Gay Nigger Association of America logo seems to support that assessment of your choices, being an "organization" that promotes trolling. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, with note to user. Let's not use any more time on this one. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

thank you. there is nothing on that page that would offend anyone. i still wish i could put that "big schlong barnstar" on my page, but i have no proof. :( -badmachine 03:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for User:Badmachine

I don't feel particularly offended by the boxes this user keeps trying to put on his page, but the Gay Nigger Association of America one seems to indicate that he's just here to troll, and even if you want to say it's a draconian approach to say this based merely on a box, he actually seems to have demonstrated a remarkable job of it regardless. I think he should be banned. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The signal-to-noise ratio may be relatively low compared to bona fide high-efficiency editors (such as yours truly, of course), and personally I detest all that GNAA BS (I'm putting it mildly), but I don't see a reason to ban. Look at their contributions--it's not all about user pages and penes/penii. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of the signal-to-noise argument in general. If a user trolls, they shouldn't be here. It's not a question of volume of good vs. bad contribs. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't subscribe to the trolling argument in the first place, though that's a matter of opinion. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the statement that he's "just here to troll". A casual glance at his contributions shows mostly productive edits. Maybe we're all being trolled and one day Badmachine will become a steward and the main page will be raining penises, but for now I think there's not much of a case even for blocking. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm the rat who originally turned him in for his userpage penises. I think his userpage should be unlocked (he can't even add me to his friends list!) and he should NOT be banned. For one, permanent protection isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. For another, GNAA and Satanism userboxes aren't really disruptive and a dick pic isn't even that bad (if you don't believe me have a search over at commons, or even our own article on male genetalia. Badmachine is utterly harmless and I feel that he's being set upon by a mob just because he's got a GNAA userbox. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, saved by the bell I guess. I edit conflicted with Drmies (and Equazcion, and just now, Night Ranger and before him Laser Brain; jesus, i type slowly); I was going to explain why I was about to indef block badmachine. What I was going to post is this: I have previously expressed the opinion that users with a GNAA logo and a My Little Pony userbox on their user pages should be blocked indef, as such a user page is prima facie evidence of trolling. A glance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#indefinite protection of userpage over userbox solidifies this; we've seen this show before. I am going to block badmichine indefinitely for continuous, low-level trolling. When you continually test the boundaries to see how much you can get away with, eventually you find out.. Out of my great respect for Drmies (if you disagree with something, I'm inclined to triple check to make sure I'm not in the wrong), I will hold off blocking badmachine, but I strongly support it. We suck at dealing with continuous low-level trolling, and he is a gigantic timesink. I anxiously await a more complete rationale about why this editor shouldn't be banned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm always wrong: look up the page, at "Block review, please". Block badmachine indefinitely! I'm kidding, a bit, but as you may know I am very much inclined to a positive outlook, usually to a fault, but I hope I'm right this time. Sorry about making you edit-conflict; that's real irritating. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - Personally, I think if WP adopted an "anything goes" mentality with user pages, we'd have a lot more editors (granted, and a lot more rubbish, but, hey, take the good with the bad). Yeah, yeah, I know WP is "not Myspace/Facebook" but, you know, those websites are pretty popular. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that turning WP into a "popular" social networking site would be a good thing, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what an encyclopaedia is. We're here to build content, and a user whose dominating concern is being able to make a kawaii personal userpage can hardly be called an "editor" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i feel compelled to respond to the assertion that editing my user page is my "dominating concern". i have made about 3500 edits, if i recall correctly, and i believe less than 50 of them have been to my user page. -badmachine 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment regarding you. I responded to Quinn's (over)generalised rationale. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - trolling means going for an emotional response. i only want my userpage unlocked. i went thru the proper channels, and added template:edit request to my talk page, and my request was denied, and i was referred to the admin who locked it. he said lolno, so i came here, which i believe is the proper channel. wrt Floquenbeam, who said i was a "time sink", that is absurd. if you do not want to listen to contributors, then why are you a sysop? i am going thru the proper channels here. that's like a supervisor getting mad at his employees for working. :\ -badmachine 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested you should be banned merely because you want your user page unlocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your suggestion that i be banned based on MLP and GNAA userboxes is baseless, and seems intended to intentionally start drama. i could suggest that you, yourself, be banned, but that would be pointy. -badmachine 03:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one suggested the boxes alone were the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - as Equazcion states; "even if you want to say it's a draconian approach". Well yes, it is a draconian approach and we don't block (or worse - ban) editors based on their affiliations. Badmachine is a long-term and productive WP editor on the whole. People here are focusing on the guy's userpage and his liking of penises/penes, while ignoring his good contributions. Seriously - leave him to edit in peace and let's all focus less on the drama - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with penises, nor with those who care for them. People should indeed be able to like penises without being banned. But, then, liking them isn't actually his reason for posting them, now is it. As I've stated, the materials themselves are not the reason for this proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my point wasn't about the penes but about the unnecessary associated drama, as well as the heavy-handed approach - Alison ^❤ 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think trolling (defined as something intentional) warrants a heavy hand. Trolls like to incite the light-handed kind -- as that's what trolling is. Better to get rid of it once and for all. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. There's far too much "ban the troll" going on on WP these days, IMO. It's too often used to take out those whom we simply don't understand/like/agree with. This project needs more tolerance, not more bannination - Alison ^❤ 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wikipedia could use less "ban the troll" mentality when it comes to lumping in someone whose opinions we dislike with those who actually engage in trolling, but it's not being used that way in this case. There's little reason, if any, to think this user is simply being misunderstood. I think we all understand quite well what he's trying to do with this content. If you think actual trolling should be overlooked in the face of good contributions, then yes, we will most certainly have to agree to disagree. I just want it to be clear what exactly we're agreeing to disagree on. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, if a user is being generally productive and the only thing they're trolling is their own userpage, I would oppose something as serious as a ban. I'm not going to oppose it in this case, as I take a dim view of people who toss around the "N" word for lulz. Wikipedia needs less of that. Actually, the world needs less of that. 28bytes (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what the world needs less of, is people taking offense over things like words. and penis pictures. i mean honestly, wikimedia commons is practically on par with slutload dot com as far as content. in fact, i doubt that even slutload has a video of a dog eating out the pussy of a woman in a nun's habit, so in that regard, wikimedia commons wins. -badmachine 06:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is full of porn, so it's OK for you to use racial slurs. Got it. 28bytes (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Lindberg certainly seemed to think so. And there's an article for that (which is where the other crowd got their name from). Just saying ... - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not every single use of that word is a fucking slur. see reclaimed word for just one example. jesus i wish some of you would take the sticks out of your asses. -badmachine 07:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How thoughtful of the GNAA to "reclaim" the word on behalf of black people. And here I thought they were just using it for shock value. 28bytes (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you implying that the GNAA is all white? -badmachine 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating flat-out that they are using racially charged language because they think it's funny. 28bytes (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd also like to point out that we would probably get rid of someone who repeatedly placed a phrase like "gay niggers" on his userpage just for display purposes. The fact that an "organization" exists along with an associated logo/article shouldn't serve as an excuse for inclined users to slide by this standard. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is that he should be banned based on his affiliations, yes? - Alison ^❤ 06:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said anything of the sort. A mere affiliation would not merit banning a user. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's displaying those affiliations that's the problem then? - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. If this user's choice of userboxes and images showed, overall, a mere wish to display the organizations with which he was affiliated, I might sympathize, and say it's not problem in itself -- although aside from it being plain to see that this is not the case, the display of the "Gay Niggers Association of America" logo is itself problematic, since we wouldn't allow such a phrase (or reference to it) on userpages just for display purposes in any other scenario. Its existence in the first place is an admitted attempt to troll. If a user has a purely off-wiki interest in the group, he should find some other way to advertise it, or indeed not advertise it at all -- but not because it states his affiliation. We just don't allow that kind of thing on userpages, in a superficial sense. But, in this case, since that alone doesn't seem to be his intent anyway, it's something of a moot point. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - is this going all the way down the line? You have a problem with the GNAA logo being displayed? Have you any idea who created that? He's pretty respectable - Alison ^❤ 07:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do, for the reasons 28bytes does (it doesn't matter who created it). Although, I did also happen to mention I thought that was a moot point in this case, not my primary concern. I guess you must've missed that. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should try taking up the issue with that organization, instead of beating up on one of its affiliates, no? I see he's got a MLP userbox, too - do you also have issues with My Little Pony? Clearly it's disparaging of diminutive equines - Alison ^❤ 08:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (is this is starting to sound ludicrous yet?? Seriously!)[reply]

In what case? My specifically not taking issue with statements of affiliation with those groups should cause me to complain to them? You can keep mischaracterizing this as a problem you have an easier time arguing against, but as I keep saying, that's not it. Am I stuttering? Equazcion ^(talk) 08:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Abloobloo bloo bloo this user has a bunch of stuff -on their userpage- (which I am compelled, nay, FORCED to look at every second of every day) that I don't like, even though it falls within policy. BREAK OUT THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS, CLEM! Jtrainor (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You've been trolled if you rise to the bait and take offense or respond to it in any way. If we all just ignore this and move along, badmachine is just another user with boxen on his user page with letters in it that have very little meaning if you don't give a crap. Short of them spouting racist/nationalist/yada yada crap that incites this crime or that, we should just move along. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should expand on this a bit more now that I think on it. This is not to say I condone trolling of any sort. badmachine contributes and productively, which we should take into account. Sure his boxen may offend some and not others, but as his activities and affiliation, or lack thereof, with the GNAA, are not their sole purpose here I don't see why such a big fuss is being raised. Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd agree there if we were dealing with a single case of trolling. I've seen this user troll before, but have never actually addressed it. A troll who has made it clear he's attempting to test the boundaries of user page allowance by eliciting reactions and will continue to do so in the future is another story. As to the second part of your comment, I've made my thoughts on that clear above, but trolls should be handed their hats whether they've contributed productively or not. There are certain things that shouldn't be tolerated regardless of other positive behavior. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are limits to be tested, then perhaps a trip to the Village pump to discuss ways of tightening up the restrictions would be a better way to go about it. We've all seen people banned for various infractions over the years (hell I even got bored for a period and read about every user on the shit list) and even if badmachine is low level trolling, this doesn't warrant a full blown community ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban: the modem will be reset and the user will be back anyway. Just look around and you will see pretty much everyone is doing non-serious stuff. Deal with it and ignore the perpetrators (unless they're similar to Pinktulip, but even then, fat chance). >Sunglasses< Anne Clin You're Beautiful (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dick pic is gone and the page is unprotected. The ban ain't happening and some people need to get a grip. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC

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

~~Witty vandalism~~
It's surely worth passing on that this clever spoof edit, which stood in the article for over a fortnight, made it to a suitably inane gossip column on page 2 of The West Australian newspaper today. Alas, because it had appeared for so long, I was unable to jeer at the paper for reporting an overnight flash of vandalism. Yes, I can supply a pic of the coverage if required. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say, but for vandalism, that actually is pretty funny and well beyond the league of the usual rubbish of puerile penis jokes etc. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with the insinuation that penis jokes are puerile. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you and User:badmachine have something in common! Brohoof, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
brohoof received. -badmachine 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Let's be logical here. Penis images are way more puerile than penis jokes. C'mon now. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Blocked IP strikes again with vandalism~~

Looks like Edgar181 blocked them for a week.[3] Based on this [4], I've also semi-protected your user and talk page for 1 month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry to both the admin team, I appreciate how busy things can be around here. I previous notified ANI about an IP who went on a disruptive escapade, vandalising articles, refactoring talk pages, and posting personal attacks/harassing users for no reason. Discospinster (talk · contribs) issued them with a 31 hour block on April 29. However, since the block has expired, the IP has continued to post attacks. Firstly by telling Discospinter to "go to hell - fuck you", and also blatant vandalism on Snow White and the Huntsman by changing the word huntsman to "cuntsman". I think its time someone dealt with this one severely. And if possible, as a precaution, would it be possible to semi-protect my user page, as I have an inkling that the IP may go on a rampage and start vandalising that too. Thanks folks - Wesley☀Mouse 10:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered Dennis Brown informed me the other day to report this to AIV next time it happened; so done just that. Wesley☀Mouse 11:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Uncommunicative school project~~
For the last few weeks there has evidently been some kind of school or university project involving each student working on an article about an English village (identified as university coursework here: [5]; other articles include Stirchley, Shropshire, Clee St. Margaret, Waverton, Cumbria, Stanton upon Hine Heath, and many others). I haven't been able to find out what institution is doing this, but I have a guess it might be related to the geography department of Portsmouth University. This is certainly a great idea in general, and I'm very much of the opinion we should encourage and help this effort, but unfortunately many of the students involved have had problems with image uploads, some also with other copyright-related stuff. Many of them have been repeating the same errors: uploading non-free images of buildings or non-free chart graphics; re-uploading free images that already existed on Commons, and so on. Today, for the first time, I had to block one of them because he was re-uploading the same bad image multiple times.
What troubles me is that multiple members of this group have been curiously unresponsive to polite, friendly messages regarding the background of their project. I've been asking several of them to provide me with some contact address to get in touch with their supervisor, simply to get some advice about better image handling across to the group as a whole, but people keep simply ignoring my requests:
HannahPeek (talk · contribs) [6]

Christopher Edward John Ellis (talk · contribs) [7]

Sophwelland (talk · contribs) [8]

Andrew Poyntz-Roberts (talk · contribs) [9]
I'm really at a loss to understand what's going on. Have they decided among themselves that I'm their common enemy because they keep seeing my name in deletion messages? Could somebody else try to have a word with a few of them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For any students from this class that are reading this notice. Our goal here is to work with you and your professor to provide you with the resources and training that will help you succeed in editing our encyclopedia. We have an educational program that is designed to work with university classes for this purpose. The Wikimedia UK Chapter runs the program in your country and you can learn more about their efforts at this website: [10]. If you don't feel comfortable letting us know what class you're in, please ask your professor to contact the Wikimedia UK chapter's education program using the information at the link provided. GabrielF (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you have an IP/possible sock that geolocates to University of Portsmouth, so at least that suspicion is confirmed. --64.85.220.145 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the guys above who, instead of finally responding in some meaningful way, simply removes his name from the list above. Sigh. Are these university students? I sure hope the ones that I teach wouldn't react like that in such a situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ah, at least now I'm in a dialogue with one of them. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~When you're done with that, please look at the history of Urbanism. Unless you have a day job, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Urbanism should either be rolled back to a much earlier version, or AfD'd. I don't think it's salvageable in the condition its in without a massive amount of work. As it stands it's a horror which reflects very poorly on the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about rolling it back to its 2004 creation, a redirect to Urban Planning?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was very tempted to do that, but "urbanism" is much more of a sociological concept, and not really the same as urban planning. What I really think needs to happen is for someone with knowledge of the subject to go through the article mercilessly, trim it down, clean it up and rescue it from the students who are currently writing it. Unfortunately, that person is not me.
If there's no one around who can take on the task, then stubbing it or AfD'ing it are better alternatives than leaving it in place as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No way I would take that to AfD. Whenever I've taken messy articles to AfD on subjects as broad as that, I'm accused of not following notability guidelines. Stubbing it is a possibility. I'll wait and see if anyone else bites.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another user, James Marwood (talk · contribs), just contacted me on my talk page and complained about a speedy deletion tag. The user mentioned a university project and the file is used in an article about an English village, so it seems to fit with the other users. I'm writing a reply there now. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's certainly one of the Portsmouth guys too. They're getting a bit nervous, it seems, because they have their deadline tomorrow. (I've now got a communication channel with them, and I'd be available if anybody else needs advice.) I'm only glad the "urbanism" page discussed above must be a different project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~A racist ranting about "white slaveowners" on "African American"~~

There is nothing racist in what B-Machine has said. Leaf Green Warrior, I'm feeling lenient, so, as far as I'm concerned, there is no flying boomerang about to hit you, but let me warn you: further frivolous complaints will result in sanctions. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779
Have already had problems with this guy (made an ANI a few days ago, apparently he's got a huge history of abusing other editors, edit warring, etc)
Heavily implies that black Africans are "superior".. rants and raves about "white and native american slaveowners".. want to suppress any mention of admixture on African American and keep it as a purely "black african" page. It's just so obviously the racist rantings of a black supremacist. Sorry but WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY have really been stretched to their limits by this user - BAN THIS RACIST, please. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Green Warrior, please stop throwing the word racist around like it's children's candy. You've referred to all the editors who disagree with you at Talk:African American as racists, and it's time to stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Malik said. I see nothing racist in these edits. What I do see is some incredible naivete in this one. One-drop theory, anyone? Also, a bit of clicking reveals that this user of fewer than 200 edits has already been blocked once, has managed to piss off a bunch of other editors (including apparently everyone on that talk page) and a bunch of administrators, and is in possession of a battlefield mentality mounted on top of a soapbox. If this keeps up the user should acquaint themselves with another probably racist guideline, WP:BOOMERANG (possibly derogatory of Australian Aborigines...). Earlier, user declared themselves about our edit-warring policies in the defense of some race or other--see their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous thread (don't know how I missed it--maybe I'm racist) is here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Insults_from_user. It seems B-Machine also has a bit of a temper, but I'm not really very offended by this comment: though the words "troll" and "racist" are used the tone is markedly different from Warrior's. B-Machine has been blocked for harassment, for this remark--but that was in 2010. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malik "You've referred to all the editors who disagree with you at Talk:African American as racists" - this is a lie. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem with respect to the article African American has been Leaf Green Warrior. He has been blocked once for a 3RR violation and has twice been warned by administrators here User talk:Leaf Green Warrior#April 2012 and here User talk:Leaf Green Warrior#Courtesy reminder...... (the administrator is John Carter). Despite the warnings, Leaf has continued to accuse anybody who disagrees with him as either a racist or a person guilty of racism.
He has been forum shopping and this current charge is just another example of this. Others are here [11] and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct? and here Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 April 24#I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be?. The theme is always the same -- Leaf is right and everyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong but is a racist or ignorant.
The pattern of response from other editors is likewise the same. Nobody agrees with his charges, nobody agrees with his content position, and many well intentioned editors have asked him to cool it. Apparently, according to this warning, Leaf has also used different identities in the past for this type of conduct.
The pure audacity for Leaf to charge other editors of what he is doing regularly is astounding. Warnings and good advice and a 24 hour block have not changed his behavior. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet mother of spam! Can we just keep this directly related to the ANI report, as opposed to discussing the intricacies of African Americans? In my opinion, the editor I made this ANI about posted racist comments. If you disagree that this was racist, then fine, just say so and state a simple reason, no point in ranting about irrelevant concepts. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not come into this ANI with clean hands. It is certainly relevant to examine whether the accuser is even more guilty of the alleged offense than the accused. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the last ANI [12] I expressed some disappointment in both editors, including B-machine for this [13], although I made it clear that LGW wasn't blameless and offered "however, if either ends up here again soon, I would likely be less gentle in my approach, as would others. " and I stand by my statements. In the two examples offered, I see what I consider "heated debate", not racism. I'm known to be quite tolerant of heated debate that falls short of incivility as I believe it is an essential part of discussing controversial topics. However, I am not very tolerant of people falsely claiming that someone else is a racist, simply because they disagree, or simply stirring the pot to bully those that object to them. I would agree that a boomerang is likely overdue, and would gladly support anyone wishing to implement it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaf, you really need to take a few deep breaths and consider what's going on around you, that you find yourself so completely isolated from all the editors here in the project. Consider that maybe you are mistaken, or at least that you are going at the matter in totally the wrong manner. I'm a classic cracker (Scots-Irish and English, some Cherokee on my granddaddy's side), but I don't perceive Malik's history here to be one of racism; indeed, he's one of our most solid editors on race-related issues. This is neither a Klavern nor a Nation of Islam site; this is a bunch of fallible human beings, each doing the best we can to uphold our standards here in a civil and impartial manner. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Malik"? The ANI I filed is about B-Machine, not Malik. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Orange Mike, but B-Machine is the subject of this filing, not me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern is the same, as is the conclusion, since you are one of the "either" in that statement. I've already said that ~~Malik's~~ B-machine's actions were not actionable. Your actions are, and the prior ANI demonstrates this point. We are not puppets here solely to examine the diffs you bring to us, we are fellow editors and will always consider the behavior of all parties in the dispute. In this dispute, I believe your actions to be in bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop droning on about Malik. This ANI is about comments made by B-Machine, not Malik. Learn to read before commenting on ANI please. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~User:Greyhood~~
I am beginning to become concerned with user:Greyhood, user primarily edits on Russian articles, is a frequent and consistent editor who removes sources, in favor of non-notable sources in order to confuse other users and push an agenda.
Replaced Current Facts with disputable info from a non- notable database; in fact its appearance on wiki violates the terms of use of the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=487380845
User has removed references http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=489423788, a reference was inexplicably removed, this happened recently(apr.27)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhirinovsky%27s_ass This article was created by Greyhood and has sparked edit warring and unrest, because it is largely non encyclopedic, and reflects an overall agenda on Greyhood behalf.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive182 He has been the member of a dispute previously brought by user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malick78.
Was going to use subst:uw-nor, but instead ANI warningWrathofjames (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I am not mistaken, the only interaction between you and Greyhood documented on his talk page is your notification of this ANI topic, which has a subtitle "Stop abusing Wikipedia". This is not exactly what the dispute resolution procedures advise you to do. I suggest that you follow the procedures first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the offered differences briefly. I don't really see anything here that is blatantly controversial or tenacious. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, for the record. I often have differences in opinions with Greyhood, especially concerning contemporary Russian politics, but I have never seen him edit-warring or replacing reliable sources with junk sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've had only positive experiences with Greyhood at ITN. Boomerang might be spinning round… —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
I looked at the diff you posted on Greyhood's talk page. I could not understand what you were objecting to. Perhaps if you explained to him on his/her talk page what it was that you objected to, it would give him/her the chance to explain. He/she does not bite. If you deal with him/her reasonably you will find that he/she is willing to compromise when he/she understands your objections (assuming your objections are reasonable and are backed by reliable sources). Sources need to be reliable sources. It is only the subjects of articles that need to be notable.
As for disputes about other articles, I did not see any edits by User:Wrathofjames to the article on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video on the list of contributors. After discussion, the article has been stable since 9 April - the editors worked together to build a compromise. User:Wrathofjames's claims about User:Greyhood and that article assume bad faith. That is not OK. Other editors would not have spent their precious time working with Greyhood on that article if it had been as User:Wrathofjames said. I found Greyhood easy to deal with and willing to compromise.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the link on oil production in Russia. There is no convention that in the Russia article we should prefer CIA over other sources (CIA is mostly a nice collection of country data, but too often outdated). International Energy Agency is in fact a better source, more relevant to the energy stuff and providing more up-to-date reports.

With Zhirinovsky video, the issues in that article have been long fixed via discussion and collaboration with other users. In Putin, one reference was already present in the section below, and the second reference was excessive since the fact of the oil price rise is already supported by other references. GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Want admin interference for dispute in Kashmiri Pandit~~

User directed to WP:DRN for content dispute, complaint was not regarding another editor's behavior. SÆdon^talk 05:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kashmiri Hindus (also known as Kashmiri Pandits) are a small minority community in Jammu & Kashmir. The section of the article is Kashmiri Pandits' Exodus from Kashmir (1985–1995). From the year 1985, Kashmiri Pandits were being specifically targeted by Islamic militants due to their religion. U can read more about their ethnic cleansing in Jammu & Kashmir here : [14], [15]. In 2009 Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognise 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities (Kashmiri Pandits) of Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists seeking to establish an Islamic state. (Here is the resolution :Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session])
User:Fowler&fowler removed this well-sourced content from the article Kashmiri Pandit here :[16] and typed following in the edit summary : Since when did Oregonians become experts on South Asia. 9 out of 10 couldn't spot Kashmir on a map to save their lives. There was no proper reason given by User:Fowler&fowler for this edit.
I identified it as vandalism and restored the content removed by him. But next was the turn of User:Sitush who reverted my edits and asked for discussion. I discussed the matter here[17], in which he couldn't give any strong argument for the removal of content. The content was definitely relevant and was present in the article since very old time. So, the content should be restored. SubQuad (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubQuad, all but the last paragraph of the above is a content dispute. I presume that you did not see the huge notice regarding the purpose of this particular noticeboard. The correct course in content disputes, if you believe them to have reached a stalemate on the article talk page, is outlined on dispute resolution page.
Of the last paragraph, the last sentence is also a content dispute. I'll let others comment on the rest of it, so that you get some uninvolved input, but will point out that (a) you are is a fairly newly registered contributor and there is no doubt in my mind that you are having difficulties with our Five Pillars, WP:BLP etc; and (b) I would encourage you to go back to the talk pages of the various articles and try to talk these things through again. Sitush (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SubQuad posted this thread at the top of the ANI page; I have moved it to the bottom, although in chronological terms it should probably be up there ^ a little. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been the other editor involved here, and the problem as usual resides with the person arguing with Sitush. The two of us are trying to work things out with him, and this thread really isn't helping anything. In most cases I'd be inclined just to block the account for general asshattery, but I don't think SubQuad is entirely without potential, so I'm willing to wait and see if he's willing to listen to the firm prodding from us to use talkpages. A discretionary sanctions notice has been issued, so if things continue to go downhill I or another admin can take the necessary actions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread about Kashmiri Pandit, Fowler&fowler, or Sitush? It is not entirely clear what the OP expects from ANI. --regentspark (comment) 23:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regents park - Sir, This thread is about our dispute on Kashmiri Pandit- [18]. I am sorry for a confusing title earlier. SubQuad (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler could have left a less rhetorical edit summary, but he's right. The Oregon legislative assembly is not an expert body on the sociopolitical landscape of India. Proper sourcing would be something an academic journal, or at the very least a major newspaper quoting an expert. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes, you want WP:DRN. SÆdon^talk 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Disruptive editing by Dale Chock~~
~~Dale Chock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
Over at Russian phonology, user Dale Chock has been exhibiting a pattern of contentious and even disruptive edits for the last month. On April 6, he removed a paragraph describing a minority viewpoint. From his edit summary ("Delete a report of a maverick, mistake riddled proposal that was ignored by other specialists half a century ago"), it seemed that he mistakenly interpreted the paragraph to be about one source (Bidwell 1962) rather than multiple sources, as reflected in the citations. So I restored the paragraph with a POV-section tag and started a talk page discussion outlining my perspective. At first, Dale declined to contribute to this discussion and instead deleted the content again on April 19 and on April 22, which I restored[19][20] with edit summaries pointing him to the talk page. When he finally contributed to the discussion two weeks after the dispute began, his behavior was inflammatory and rude, saying, "'AE' is pretending he's discussing theory. He has no understanding of the theory of any article he edits on languages or linguistics."
Subsequent to this talk page post, Dale immediately focused his attention on a new round of contentious deletions, specifically of two tables[21][22], which I restored[23][24]. Again, his behavior in the talk page was problematic, not just because of unnecessary rudeness (such as saying "for AEsos to raise this objection only reaffirms his ignorance of even beginning Russian") but because his comments were aimed primarily at discrediting me rather than addressing my points. Focusing on content, not contributors, is a general problem of Dale's.
Even more disruptive, though, is Dale's practice of removing citation requests[25][26][27][28][29] (which I have continually had to restore[30][31][32][33]). Dale has also removed actual citations. In what seems like an attempt to discredit the above tables that he didn't like, he removed the citations that backed them up, citing an apparent error in the page range[34]. However, edits just prior to this show him fixing the same page range error for another claim from the same source[35][36] and even a talk page contribution[37] explicitly shows that he has access to the source and knew the correct page range. Since it's clear that he knew where the tables were, his given reason for removing citations was a blatant case of dishonesty.
I'm not sure what sort of action would be appropriate. I've had issues with him at diasystem and diaphoneme, where his behavior was similar in that he would attempt to delete content and participate with hostility in the discussion page. I had even hoped that a community response from Wikiquette assistance might steer him in the right direction. His response in that conflict was to abandon the articles and put forth a manifesto on his user page where he seems to imply that he views civility to be at odds with concern for article quality. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Repeated vandalism by undocumented editors~~
On the Lazerfest page. Seem to have a real axe to grind with the radio station that puts it on. I've made a few minor edits to that page here and there, but continue to see random acts of vandalism on a nearly daily basis since the initial ban was lifted. Thanks for your attention to this Hellbilly515 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Hellbilly515[reply]
I've reverted to the last good version and semi-protected the page for one month, which should take it past the event. Normally I wouldn't protect so long, but that last two week protect didn't seem to be effective enough. I left the talk page unprotected in the event an IP or other new user wants to request changes to the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that User:Hellbilly641 and User:Rocksocks69 are socks of User:Ftheoldies, based on the existing SPIs here [38] and that they are only editing this one article, like all the other socks. Enough to just block purely on WP:DUCK but as socks aren't my specialty, holding off. Any admin that wants to school me on this point, feel free to jump in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rocksocks69 is Confirmed as Ftheoldies. Hellbilly641 is Unrelated to our socker, but I've blocked him anyway as he's obviously impersonating Hellbilly515. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you Elen, I had just poured a cup of coffee and was about to walk down the hall to SPI after speaking with Drmies last night. You saved me the trip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unblock request: User:Admarkroundsquare~~

Floquenbeam has everything under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admarkroundsquare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It appears this user was hardblocked by User:Orangemike for nothing but their user name, which included their freely disclosed company name (Round Square). The entry in the block log reads:
User:Admarkroundsquare – "14:06, 26 April 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) blocked Admarkroundsquare (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{spamusernameblock}})"
This block was in direct violation of WP:ORGNAME:

"Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username."

as well as WP:UAAI:

"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username."

Instead we have a situation here where an individual freely disclosed their association, did not make a single problematic edit, yet is blocked from creating another account that is compliant with user name policy. This is wrong. --JN466 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All other concerns aside, it's incorrect to hardblock but leave a softblock template for an editor - we owe it to our users, all of them, to provide accurate information with regard to things they can or should do, and preventing someone from creating an account while telling them "all you have to do is create another account!" is poor adminning, no matter what they've been blocked for. OrangeMike, you really ought to take some care in lining up your blocks and your block notices to avoid issues like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Page histories: useful things! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Cf. [39]. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Fluffernutter, OrangeMike didn't leave a {{softerblock}} template; someone else came along and replaces the {{uw-spamblock}} he used with a new template, but didn't alter the block type accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I stand corrected. ErrantX, that made things a bit awkward. Double-check these in the future? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, that didn't even occur to me :) sorry. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock. Take action on bad edits, don't kneecap editors on general principles — that's the consensus policy. Orgname has been misinterpreted in this case, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unblock, but I'm going to modify the block so that they are free to create a new username without jumping thru any more hoops, and leave a message to that effect on their talk page. If anyone wants to overrule me and just unblock altogether, feel free, I won't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, has anyone just asked Orangemike to unblock? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long prior conversation at Wikipedia:AN#Orange_Mike where Orangemike defended the block and made clear he did not want to be bothered. --JN466 22:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Floquenbeam's solution, and that's what I'd do if I was handling this myself. Everyone, lay off the rhetoric, we had quite enough of that the last time through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~King Genovese, again~~
~~King Genovese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
This user was discussed recently in a thread now archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#King Genovese, the concern being that despite many warnings he was producing a stream of articles about American mobsters many of which were copyvio, non-notable, badly-referenced and/or BLP violations. He was invited to the discussion, and though his response: "What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do" was unpromising, Dennis Brown gave him some good advice, and no action was taken on the basis that he seemed to have stopped.
However today he has produced three more articles, Gabriel Mannarino a blatant copyvio, Dominick Alaimo which more or less asserted non-notability with the words "only remembered for attending the Apalachin Conference in 1957", and James Lanza, an unreferenced article which has been redirected.
This seems to be a serious case of IDHT and is a waste of everyone's time. I have blocked him for a week and left on his talk page beneath the block notice yet another statement of the problems with his editing. Anyone may unblock who is convinced King G understands the problems and will not continue in the same way. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not me. Let's see if we're back here a week and maybe a day from now. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
There has been a lot of good faith given and attempts to reach out on a personal level, more than just templates. Whatever comes of it, at least we tried everything reasonable first. It isn't wasted time though. I would rather "waste" a little time when there is a chance to get someone up to speed than just stick up the regulation number of templates on the page and sending them packing and never know if they might have been able to actually learn to help out around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The waste of time I meant was not reasoning with KG but dealing with his inappropriate articles - his deleted contributions list shows over 40 in less than a month. JohnCD (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have parsed my words a bit more carefully. Point taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through their contribs (nice and short since they've only been here less than a month) and in general they have very few talk page posts and the few that he does make show a severe lack of competence (they even referred to plagiarising as copy-editing, the nerve! GOCE will hear about this!) even after they've been given advice, which then leads them into WP:IDHT territory. I'd wager that after their block expires they'd definitely get back into making more poorly sourced (if at all) articles, whether they stay with the mafia or move onto something else we'll have to wait and see. Also, let's throw in a attack while we're at it. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dave Winer and Irelan12~~

Irelan12 is hereby banned from Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, the accounts in question:

Irelan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – currently blocked for 48 hours

Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – not blocked, but no longer in use

Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked

NickIre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked, also created the article Nickirelan.com which User:Ryulong deleted with the reason "banned user". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickirelan.com.

Irelann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – blocked, see [40] [41]

A few days ago, I declined a request by User:Irelan12 to remove semi-protection on the BLP article Dave Winer. In the process, I observed a considerable quantity of contentious editing and discussion on the talk page, most of which center around User:Irelan12. I opened a thread on WP:BLPN, see Wikipedia:BLPN#Dave_Winer, and various editors have agreed that User:Irelan12 is one in a long string of accounts starting originally with User:Nirelan. Given the obvious naming similarities, it's pretty obvious that Nick Irelan is behind them, who got into a dispute with Dave Winer in this off-wiki comment thread here from 2007.
I blocked Irelan12 as an obvious sock of Nirelan, and subsequently this block was undone as the original Nirelan account isn't blocked. Mea culpa, I made a mistake. I should have checked that one properly. See User talk:Tom Morris#User talk:Irelan12.
Irelan12 is now blocked for 48 hours for edit warring with Youreallycan on Dave Winer: see User talk:Irelan12.
I bring this here because there is a long-standing problem with the article, and most of that problem seems to be coming from Irelan12 and his various incarnations stemming back to 2007. Indeed, the Nick Irelan issue has been repeatedly added to the article including by User:NickIre. You'll note that the source Irelan uses in the aforementioned diffs is to the gossip blog Gawker (formerly Valleywag), hardly a reliable source.
For persistent and long-running edit warring and tendentious editing in contravention of WP:BLP, I'm going to suggest we indef block all of Irelan's accounts and strongly consider community banning Nick Irelan. This dispute has been rolling since 2007, I don't see any change here: edit warring, BLP, sourcing issues.
As an aside, I have to declare a very slight conflict of interest: in the above-linked comment thread, there are some unrelated posts by me. I was also in occasional contact with Dave Winer on a variety of technical issues from about 2007 through to about 2009, and briefly met him in a London pub, but we've fallen out of contact. I will also note that I'm going away for a few days, so may not be available to answer questions or participate in this discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Tom's comments - indefinitely block all of Irelan's accounts and community ban Nick Irelan - four years of the users COI SinglePurpose contributions and socks and blocks in relation to a single biography of a living person is enuf - more than enough - Youreallycan 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I responded to the Irelan12 requests for unblock also. Like Tom Morris, I too failed to see that the "original" User:Nirelan account was not indef blocked. No less, this editors tendentious editing is extra-ordinary. He is singularly focused on the Dave Winer article and singularly focused on making his desired edits to it. In my last contact with him, I revoked his ability to edit his talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. There appears to be no talking to him. --RA (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've been following this dispute since 2007. There is truly nothing new this time around. Nirelan is on a crusade of some kind and is not interested in anyone else's views. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the sockfarm alone --Guerillero | My Talk 23:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nick Irelan has been a consistent source of grief to his fellow editors through his tendentious editing, edit warring, flogging of dead horses and profligate sock puppetry, all of which spring from his obsessive need to diminish Dave Winer. ARK (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no understand of what sockpuppets the user has (I assume they're all proven) used in the past. However, after I explained it to them about the misuse and misunderstanding of the various policies, they seem to understand it. However, they do remind me a lot of myself when I started. I used to let other people use my computer and there was a lot of vandalism from my IP, so when I tried to edit an article, I was considered a vanadal. Is it not possible that this person is having the same issue? Think how you would feel if you are trying to edit an article in which you fully believe you are correct and have evidence to back it up and are being tagged as a vandal? Maybe the best course of action is to explain to the user that they should take a few days to gather all the evidence that proves their version of the edits to be correct, to post it here (or on the talk page) and let an admin look at it and decide. It could just be a misunderstanding on the entire situation. From what I've seen on the talk page, it seems like he/she is just a user who is being taught several policies at once and is confused. Wikipedia has thousands of guidelines (or at least hundreds). It might be better to tell them what to do to present a case instead of denying everything they say as vandalism. After all, treating others as how we want to be treated is a guideline on Wikipedia. I also understand completely that he/she seems to be fixated on the article. But perhaps if we make it clear to provide all the evidence that backs their side up, we can finally end the issue and either block them (if they refuse to go by the guidelines) or have another decent member of Wikipedia. They're not posting offensive things. It can't hurt to make it clear what is to be done and see if they except/=. Gorgak25 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd buy that, except they've now been at this for five years. The more you look into this, the more failed attempts to solve this user's problems are to be found. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with Tom's summary. There is no "misunderstanding on the entire situation" here. Nick Irelan's self-portraiture as a victim of a pro-Winer cabal is a transparent sham, as even a cursory perusal of the talk page archives will make abundantly clear. ARK (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I was inclined to offer a weak oppose, with a suggestion we see how he does after his block expires, until I saw his WP:IPSOCKing, below, and read this edit. He has zero credibility, and is clearly here only to push his agenda on this article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in quesion states Dave Winer made Editthispage.com. The reference used to support that claim has a screen shot that shows the site was made by Userland Software. The people who are asking that he be banned want to keep putting untrue information like that in the article. That is why they want to ban him. Gorgak25 (talk) he did provide the evidence, several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I personally know Nick, btw.[reply]

The above IP editor has only one other edit. To... Dave Winer. And, contra to WP:BLPSPS, it's sourced to a blog. I wonder exactly how the IP knows Nick. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy! Tom Morris that IP, posted this which suffice to say, I'm very... annoyed at my attempt to to defend him a short moment ago. Gorgak25 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is his neighbor.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Lets quit changing the subject and explain how he got banned when he had links to prove what he said and the bio is clearly false.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Just to let you know, we are in a dorm. Nick Irelan is a student.--50.103.147.66 (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. Concur that this person has used up their nine lives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when the excuse basically boils down to "yeah, I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm a meatpuppet!" —Tom Morris (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's settled completely, I love trying to help people and having it blow up in my face :) Wikipedia Sockpuppets 1: Gorgak 0 At least now we can all agree he (or himself and friends) are trying to skirt the rules. Gorgak25 (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Harassment by User:Andy Dingley~~
~~Please may some attention be given to persistent harassment received from this user~~
~~Initial trouble in Wikimedia Commons where Andy Dingley kept reverting my edits instantly using Twinkle.~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2012_March#re_Samblob

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&diff=next&oldid=484140874

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eddaido#Repeated_attacks_on_other_editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#General_hostility_from_User:Eddaido.2C_with_edit-warring_and_attacks
~~This is done in the hope it will lead to a full review of the circumstances. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I'm still looking at the information you have provided, but for the sake of clarity, what is the result you are seeking here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thanks for looking at this —just an end to their behaviours. Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~

Ahem. How is it, Eddaido, that you are not yet blocked for acting like a total jerk? Hounding other editors, being uncivil in edit summaries, removing others' talk page comments? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm trying to understand how any of the diffs Eddaido posted above support his contention or help him at all. Indeed, no doubt Drmies found support for his criticism of Eddaido from Eddaido's diffs. That's worse than WP:BOOMERANG - more like a dog (pun intended) chasing his own tail while looking in the mirror.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_%28marque%29&diff=prev&oldid=483972348

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies has a very valid point and echos my initial concerns. Andy has taken you to a couple of different venues where no action was taken. 3RR I understand why, Wikiquette, I don't. His threshold may be a bit too low, but his concerns are well founded. Eddaido, words mean things, and you seem to have a lack of concern about how your words affect others. Either you lack an understanding of, or willingness to comply with our standards of civility. This is why I asked for clarity, to see how delusional you were in this situation. Fortunately, your answer fills me with hope since you weren't asking for his head on a platter. The problem here is your behavior, not Andy's. It is simply unacceptable to talk down to people and rudely reply to them in this manner. More importantly, you seem like an intelligent person, so surely you know that it isn't effective to persuade others to see your point of view. If you need help to communicate better, ask for help. If you don't immediately change the way you communicate your differences, however, I don't see good things happening to you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Viriditas and User:Anupam~~
Hello, I am writing here to inform the reviewing administrator of a threat made against me here by Viriditas (talk · contribs). This individual has followed me to several articles in the last few months where he has not been an editor, including Big Bang, as well as recently Effects of cannabis. In addition, this individual has unfairly placed warnings on my talk page, stating that I have "plagiarised" material (Exhibit One, Exhibit Two), despite the fact that I always provide a source for my additions. User:Viriditas has been warned by other editors that his accusations are incorrect, but he still persists. In addition, the individual in question stated that I improperly used the rollback feature, despite the fact that I reverted my use of rollback because I accidentally clicked the rollback button and could not stop the rollback in time (I was informed that rollback is to be only used for vandalism on 22 April). I understand that User:Viriditas might be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but I think it is in the best interest of both of us that an interaction ban be set between us. I have tried several times to discuss issues with this user nicely but he is always hostile to me in his comments and replies. Thank you for taking the time to read this message and consider my request. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that none of that is true, Anupam. I have not followed you anywhere; if anything, your recent edits to the cannabis topic was a form of baiting on your part, as I was active on the talk page right before you showed up to disrupt the article with the same plagiarism you were previously warned about in regards to the Big Bang related set of articles. In other words, you were hounding and baiting me with more of the same policy violating edits, and I think you deserve a long block for it. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be an attempt by Anupam to "head 'em off at the pass", as Viriditas notified Anupam that he would be filing an ANI report less than half an hour prior to Anupam's report: [42] aprock (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam mentions in his comment to which Viriditas replies that he was planning on seeking an interaction ban and I'm guessing that he just wanted to deal with the situation and so decided to escalate. I don't think he is the type of editor who thinks in terms of "heading them off at the pass." I've disagreed with Anupam a lot, actually I can't think of a time where I agreed, but one thing I can say about him is that he has always maintained civility and acted in good faith. I would be surprised if it was different here. Not commenting on the case in general, just wanted to throw this in. SÆdon^talk 04:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam pulled the exact same stunt against me: I notify: 06:28, 27 September 2011, he preemptively files 07:12, 27 September 2011. Given his history of disruptive editing, there is little reason to assume good faith here. aprock (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months. And V has been warned. Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? Before Viriditas can be blocked, there would have to be a showing that Anupam's enjoyment of editing has been adversely affected. While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked. In the meantime we should move to put in place a I-ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A review of Viriditas' edits shows that he has indeed been following Anupam around for months."'
Hardly : Viriditas↔Anupam.

"And V has been warned."
By? Diff?

"Does it rise to a level of WP:HOUND? ... While it is obvious that V is following Anupam, Anupam has not shown "distress." If Anupam has evidence that he has been distressed, then V should be blocked."
Try reading this part of WP:HOUND again "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (i.e. just to be a dick.)

With all due respect Counselor, this sounds a lot like you jumping to Anupam's defense with little or no supporting policy or evidence (and not for the first time Anupam↔Lionelt). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Anupam has managed to escape being blocked with their combative style of editing and their filing ANI grievances that never come to anything. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I wanted to post this on Anupam's page rather than here, but he removed the thread there). I can't speak to the mutual charges of hounding (in particular, I've been unable to figure out what incident "I commented on the talk page and then you showed up to edit" was meant to refer to). About the plagiarism issue: first, I must note that in the cited instance of Gandalf61's objections against Viriditas' earlier warnings [43] I'm with Viriditas. Plagiarism applies not just to the appropriation of ideas and thoughts, but also to the appropriation of their expression. When somebody literally copies a substantial piece of text and then adds a footnote to the source, the footnote alone only tells the reader that the facts are taken from that source, but not that the literal expression is taken from it too. Thus, the use of the literal expression remains unattributed and hence may constitute plagiarism. Applying this to the "cannabis" edits at question here [44], we have a borderline case: taking over a literal passage without marking it as a quotation, adding a footnote, and then repeating the original literal text as an explicit quote inside the footnote, may be seen as narrowly escaping the plagiarism charge. It is, however, very poor academic writing. What's so difficult about writing a proper paraphrase instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is difficult about it, is that Anupam refuses to do it. He is a serial plagiarizer. Simply look at his most recent contributions to Conservapedia.[45] They are all copy and paste jobs taken directly from books, without any quotations or attributions.Here is a recent edit where he plagiarized p. 70 in Kinnear 2011. He continues to do this on Wikipedia after being asked to stop. I don't see this as "borderline", it is his primary editing style and he refuses to stop. How many contributions has he made to Wikipedia that consist of nothing but copy and paste jobs without quotes or attribution? Yes, he adds citations, but the content is not his own nor clearly marked as that of another author. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous incident with Anupam in mid-February, which led to the proposal of a topic ban at WP:AN (for Anupam and Lionelt, commenting above). That report does not seem to have been archived properly, so here is a historic link.[46] Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How has anupam avoided a block for their long-term civil pov-pushing? (And apparent sockpuppetry last year) bobrayner (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bobrayner, you have accused me of sockpuppetry two times for two different users (one being an SPA, and another being an administrator) and yet, despite me and administrator User:Master of Puppets encouraging you to pursue WP:SPI, you have never done so. I would highly appreciate if you could please stop making baseless accusations when you have not even pursued the proper venue for your claims. Once again, please do not try to frame me; if you have legitimate concerns, pursue them at the proper department. I will provide you with a quote that might help you understand why I feel so hurt when you speak this way of me: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” ~Warren Buffet I hope you understand my concerns. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please deal with your accusations against me, first? You say I followed you to several articles, most recently effects of cannabis. Do you have any evidence? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, viriditas, for distracting from the current problem. I agree that it should be dealt with. However, pre-emptive attack is nothing new here.

In response to anupam: I posted a very large collection of deeply suspicious diffs surrounding the Militant Atheism article. They were removed repeatedly. Other dissent with anupam's position was also shut down (although thankfully the community has now prevailed and the awful pov-pushing content has been removed). At that time, I was quite convinced that if I raised an SPI, that too would be shut down promptly; and I was very stressed due to the pov-pushing and the messages I was getting, so I didn't push the point any further. Would you like me to present the evidence again here? it seems like an appropriate venue. I'd be happy to offer a big stack of diffs for which sockpuppetry is the only sane explanation. Of course, if you could offer some alternative explanation, that would be welcome too. Calling them baseless accusations is just another lie; just another pre-emptive attack against somebody who has evidence of long-term problematic editing. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, have you looked closely at the diffs to see if the content was copied directly from cited sources without quotes or attribution? Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; there does seem to be very liberal copying of text. (Sorry for the derail; my main concern was about pov-pushing, and sock-puppetry and canvassing to further that pov-pushing rather than the plagiarism per se) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue: even after the problem was pointed out to him earlier in March,[47] Anupam is continuing to import non-neutral, polemical Conservapedia content into Wikipedia in extremely sneaky ways. For example, on April 11, Anupam copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article and added it to Wikipedia's article on Religion.[48] This content was plagiarized from the Mayo Clinic without any inline quotes or attribution. On the same day, he again copied content from Conservapedia's Atheism and health article, but this time rewrote it, and added it to the Wikipedia article on Suicide.[49] Along with the previously mentioned problems with copying and pasting unquoted and unattributed material, the problem of Anupam continuing to add Conservapedia content to Wikipedia has not yet been addressed. The pattern that I've observed over several months appears to be obvious. When Anupam copies over Conservapedia content to a single article on Wikipedia, it generally gets deleted and his edits are reverted. However, he has discovered a way around this problem. Instead of copying over the entire article, what he has been doing instead is copying over small sentences and paragraphs, and then distributing (merging) Conservapedia's content to multiple articles so as not to draw any attention. In this way, the content which would otherwise not be appropriate for Wikipedia on a single article or topic is preserved by placing it in many different articles and topics in smaller chunks so as not to attract attention, and amounts to a sneaky method of proselytizing. This is what he did when he added off-topic material about "atheism and the suppression of science" from Conservapedia to Wikipedia. It was deleted, but Anupam salvaged it when nobody was looking by adding it in small chunks to religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More recent plagiarism in creation and evolution in public education in the United States.[50] Anupam writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory." The source (Discovery Institute) writes: "Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory."[51] Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~RevDel required~~
Resolved
– Revisions deleted by User:Reaper Eternal. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone be so kind as to revdel here, and I suppose sinebot's next edit. There was a little bit too much personal information added in a request for a mechanic...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An admin will need to handle that, but for the future, you should generally use one of the methods described at Wikipedia:REVDEL#How to request Revision Deletion to request revision deletion instead of posting here. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN" (Moved from WP:RS/N)~~
I raised this yesterday as I see it as a broad issue for WP:RS cleanup and certainly not an issue with any particular editor. However it was closed there as an "Editor conduct issue" and a move to WP:ANI suggested.
~~User:Fladrif and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN"~~
Fladrif (talk · contribs) is blanket removing sources from a large range of articles. thepeerage.com is one, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk another.
Without any personal comment on Fladrif, I have a basic distrust of any crusade edits like this. Human editors are needed to be editors, exercising some sort of executive judgement. This blanket removal is the sort of change that could be carried out by a very small Perl script. If it's really required, then it's required - but that's only in the very worst cases, such as outright spam. In particular, this run of edits (based on the unrelated dimension of a host site) inevitably crosses many disciplines of content knowledge. Personally I just edit the stuff that I know about and I stay the hell away from anything else. Problems arise otherwise.
There is no attempt here to find other sourcing for a statement. As the end result of these is to turn a statement with a less than perfect source to one with no source at all, I'm finding it hard to see an overall benefit.
I also find this absolutely strict imposal of "Not RS per RSN, therefore immediate removal of the ref" to be simplistic.
One risk is that content that is entirely uncontroversial finds itself dereferenced (when in fact there are many, many sources for the same information) and then that information is in turn removed. Given the interminable WP problem of editors looking for adminishtrivia that can be done, rather than things that ought to be done, the likelihood is that we eventually lose content and articles for no good reason.
Is this an appropriate blanket edit to be performing? What are the set of sites that should be purged absolutely like this? Is that list visible and appropriate? Is this the best, or even an acceptable, editing action to be taking in this volume? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been extensive and definitive discussions about these sources. They are self-published sources written by amateurs who are not established experts, and have never been published by reputable, third party publications within the scope of the relevant subject matter. The clear and unequivocal consensus is that they are not reliable sources and should not be used as references; at most they can be listed as External Links. After that process is completed, one can hardly be heard to object to the removal of references to such sources; those that are interested in the subject matter will indeed need to find sources that do qualify as reliable sources lest, at some point in time, the material be deleted for lack of verifiable support. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, most of them written several years ago when it was not nearly as vigilant about sourcing, that rely heavily, if not exclusively, on online, self-published amateur websites specifically determined at WP:RSN not to be proper sources that are more convenient than actually going to a library for sources that actually qualify as reliable sources. If there are such sources, then find them and insert them as appropriate. Asserting that WP:RS and WP:V should be ignored in the meanwhile to permit sourcing to such sites notwithstanding determination at WP:RSN that they cannot be used as sources simply because "a poor source is better than no source" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise these policies are meaningless. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree that thepeerage.com is not a WP:RS and agree with actions to remove the cites to thepeerage.com from articles, especially from WP:BLP articles. There have indeed been several discussions about amateur self-published sites like thepeerage.com, please look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites. These web sites do not meet WP:RS, plain and simple. These sites may be helpful in doing research, because they sometimes site a genuine WP:RS reliable source for their information, but then the Wikipedia article should cite the WP:RS and not thepeerage.com or other amateur sites like it. Zad68 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is asserting that WP:RS or WP:V should be ignored (nice use of the straw man argument there, and I see that you've already snagged one).

However your actions here, particularly that of removing sources rather than improving them, are contra to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. It would be better to replace these sources with better ones. It would be better to work so that others might do this, perhaps by tagging the references as unreliable and in need of improvement. Simply removing them blindly is more harmful to the overall encyclopedia than I believe is necessary. In particular (and this happens with every crusade like this) it overwhelms the editor subject or project groups that might work to improve these articles by the sheer rate at which they're removed. It's the wiki equivalent of seagull management - an editor that flies across a series of articles, breaks one aspect of them (if nothing else, it opens them to summary deletion for being unreferenced) and there is no intention of that editor ever fixing the real problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No content was removed, so there is no violation, in either letter or spirit to the subsections of WP:Editing policy cited, and a certain delicious irony to citing an unsourced article in support of this untenable position. Fladrif (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place. When Fladrif removes a citation to one of these pages, he's not diminishing the quality of the page, as an unreliable source isn't any better than no source at all. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"information not attributed to a reliable source shouldn't be here in the first place."

Then if that's the strict interpretation, then the information should be removed too. Even if this blanks the article, even if causes prompt deletion of the article. We only rarely do this much, even for BLPs.

I'm not claiming that unsourced information should survive or that un-RS should be used to support it. However how do we get from where we are, to where we ought to be? I don't believe this route of expeditiously removing sources is an appropriate or the most effective way of achieving this. A smart editor would first try to find a way to manage this process so that the best result was achieved. A wiki editor instead favours finding something simple that can be done, doing lots of it, then hiding behind WP:ALLCAPS to justify what they've already done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If our overriding aim, second only to immortality, is to have no information on Wikipedia that is not attributed to a reliable source, then, as we remove references to unreliable sources, we must at the same time remove any information that by our action becomes totally unsourced. Otherwise -- is Nyttend denying this? mistakenly, I think -- we are lowering the quality of Wikipedia and making our aim unachievable. We will, at the end of the process, have a slightly smaller encyclopedia and we will know even less than before about the source and reliability of the information we haven't yet deleted.

If, of course, we have some other aims as well, we might consider how those other aims are best served before cutting down this forest. I think I'm just saying in another way what Andy has said. Andrew Dalby 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two goals here:

The important one is to have RS sourcing on articles.

The secondary one is to remove non-RS sourcing from articles.

It is a mistake to mis-prioritise these, such that removing that non-RS takes over and we're left with nothing instead. My big problem with this bulk removal is that it does the second, but absolutely nothing to either attempt the first, or to encourage others to work on it. Tag these non-RS refs as "unreliable, please improve" by all means - but simply removing them and then halting the process does absolutely nothing to improve our overall situation, re the first and more important goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a facility here, that "all information must be sourced". WP:V's lead states this: It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.. Thus, if the information is non-contentious (read: obvious) but sourced to non-RS sources, the removal of the non-RS citation should not affect the retention of the information.

That said, I'm not seeing an ANI issue here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're missing something bigger. The implied policy used to justify the removal behavior does not exist. WP:ver, even strictly read and rigorously implemented is a sourcing requirement for material. There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria, just a statement that they do not count towards the material meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that it is perfectly acceptable to populate an article with sources definitively determined at WP:RSN to violate the requirements of WP:RS is a non-starter. Such sources should be removed, and that is the routine outcome of most RSN discussions. In BLP's non-RS sources and SPS are mandated to be removed immediately and summarily per WP:BLPREMOVE. The unfortunate circumstance that some sources that should never have been permitted in the first place have been cited hundreds, or thousands of times (over 10,000 times in the case of findagrave.com - the worst example I have found so far), does not change the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V or excuse the use of such sources in violation of those policies.Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody's brought it up yet, might I suggest removing the unreliable source and tagging the information for needing a citation if an editor is unwilling or unable to provide a citation themselves? Doniago (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "the editor" here? This blanket removal doesn't really have an editor, it's just mindless 'bot work, albeit being carried out by a human. That was my first comment - real "editing" involves a human editor prepared to make decisions and choices, including the addition of new sources. None of that is going on here. Nor is this process even moving articles towards the worklists of other editors so that they can fix them instead (although I recognise that I don't have worklists on WP anyway, nor can I hire & fire editors). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Persistant IP vandalism~~

Blocked for one year by Floquenbeam due to a long and well documented history of persistent vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

66.199.196.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello, I left a final warning on this IP's talk page, but upon further review it appears that every edit from this IP going back over a year is vandalism. Note their lengthy block log and overflowing talk page full of nothing but warnings. Since this would be rejected at AIV, I am reporting here and requesting a block; the last block was for 3 months but alas that was 2008, so if it is within policy then a 6 month block is requested. Thanks, --64.85.215.18 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anonblock}}ed for a year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Article: Jack Abramoff, Talkpage; users: 199.209.144.218, 76.73.168.89, Eelnire~~
Hello everybody. Having edited in the Englisch Wikipedia for some time without ever having to deal with unpleasantness – contrary to the German Wikipedia where things are quite different – I don't know how to go about this without making it look as silly as it actually is. But not liking to have my edits reverted and being accused of “engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”, “vandelizing” (sic!) and the like into the bargain, I'm beginning to get annoyed at the two above mentioned IPs who imo are most likely the same person, and the newly registered Eelnire who very likely is identical with the two IPs (see here) active in Jack Abramoff and, as far as their contributions show, nowhere else, at least not lately (Contributions 199.209.144.218, Contributions 76.73.168.89, Contributions Eelnire).
The ‘three’ users's only contribution to the Abramoff article, as far as I could make out, is the addition of “movie producer and writer” in the lead on 30 January 2012‎ to what formerly read “Jack Abramoff ... is an American former lobbyist and businessman” (Diff). When I first updated and edited the article shortly afterwards, (first and second edit) I left the “movie producer”, but replaced “writer” by adding “After his release from prison, he wrote the book Capitol Punishment ... which was published in 2011.” My explanation that Abramoff is not called a “writer” by any sources after it was reinserted by 199.209.144.218 did not prevent the IPs to revert (Summary: “Stop reverting this sourced item. He is a writer and you should not change something based on your personal opinion. I will contact an admin next time you change it”, Summary: “He has authored 2 books and wrote the script for the movie Red Scorpion. The source from IMDB also shows him as a writer and movie producer”, Summary: “Ajnem is rewriting this because he thinks IMDB is not a valid resource. Ajnem is also ignoring the fact that Abarmoff has authored a book” (ironically, all of what the article has to say about the book was added by me)), and eventually 199.209.144.218 changed “writer” to “screenwriter and author” (Summary: “Changed because of other user not liking reference to writer. Adding something more specific”.
Enter newly registered user Eelnire. And now, things are getting weird, as he, although imo most likely identical with 76.73.168.89 (and 199.209.144.218), changes “screenwriter and author” back to “writer”, leaving a post on the talk page first as 76.73.168.89 and then signing the post as Eelnire, giving me “last warning” once more “This is the last time Ajnem. We have discussed this enough. I have provided you with plenty of sources. At this point you are not making any sense and are injecting your personal bias. I WILL contact an admin if you change it again. Your waiting for time to pass and your coming back and vandalizing this article. An admin will be contacted if you change it again”, after which “writer” was reverted to “screenwriter and author” by an uninvolved user, leaving a note on Eelnire's talk page.
Not satisfied with ‘rebranding’ Abramoff as a former “screenwriter author/writer”, and seeing to it, that he is not called a “Republican lobbyist” (Diff) ‘they’ now systematically totalrevert my edits, including those that have nothing to do with the “writer”-issue, leaving unpleasent summaries (Summary: “Stop undoing this Ajnem. Next time I am getting an admin involved. You are vandelizing (sic!) at this point”, Summary: “This has been discussed in the Talk section. Ajnem is ignoring sources and engaging in an editing war based on personal opinion”) and posts on talk pages, including mine, in addition to it (“This is the last time ...”, “Ajnem is engaging in an editing war. I have reasoned with him by changing "writer" to "screenwriter & author", provided additional sources and he continues to delete edits based on his personal opinon. He is changing this information every 2 or 3 days so he can fly under the radar and not get flagged for vandelism (sic!), not to mention giving me last warnings and announcing to contact an administrator without of course doing so.
The first sentence of the article now reads: “Jack Abramoff (... born February 28, 1959) is an American former lobbyist, businessman, movie producer, screenwriter and author (with 4 references for the “screenwriter and author”, including two Wikipedia articles ("Jack Abramoff - IMDb", "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Wikipedia", "Jack Abramoff - author of the book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist - Wikipedia" , "Jack Abramoff - writer for the film, Red Scorpion - Rotten Tomatoes")) which imo is nonsense, or at least misleading. (Incidentally, the Infobox still has Abramoff's occupation as “businessman and lobbyist”.) Abramoff is called a few things in very reliable sources, but never a “writer” or ”author”. What sources call him most often is a “disgraced (corrupt) (Republican) lobbyist (and ex-con)”. Whether he also is a writer is of course a non-dispute I would not have bothered anybody with – who could take anybody seriously who thinks that publishing an account of his lobbying career turned Abramoff into a writer? – but the reverting of the two IPs and Eelnire has become disruptive if not vandalism, making it impossible to further edit the article sensibly.
→ To make this unpleasant futility short and apologising for its length: Maybe the ‘three of them’ will disappear, as ‘they’ don't seem to be interested in anything but the one issue, if it is made clear that mentioning in the lead that Abramoff has published a book after he was released from prison not only has the advantage of being sourced by reliable sources, but also gives quite enough and actually more weight to him as a “writer” than ‘branding’ him as a former screenwriter author/writer? Ajnem (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 630: / Line 630: @@
 We're missing something bigger.  The implied policy used to justify the removal behavior does not exist. WP:ver, even strictly read and rigorously implemented is a sourcing requirement for material.  There is no prohibition against the presence of references that do not meet wp:rs criteria, just a statement that they do not count towards the material meeting the verifiability requirement.    <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
+::The notion that it is perfectly acceptable to populate an article with sources definitively determined at [[WP:RSN]] to violate the requirements of [[WP:RS]] is a non-starter. Such sources should be removed, and that is the routine outcome of most RSN discussions. In BLP's non-RS sources and SPS  are ''mandated'' to be removed ''immediately'' and ''summarily'' per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]]. The unfortunate circumstance that some sources that should never have been permitted in the first place have been cited hundreds, or thousands of times (over 10,000 times in the case of findagrave.com - the worst example I have found so far), does not change the requirements of [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] or excuse the use of such sources in violation of those policies.[[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 As nobody's brought it up yet, might I suggest removing the unreliable source and tagging the information for needing a citation if an editor is unwilling or unable to provide a citation themselves? [[User:Doniago|Doniago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Trichome

Revision as of 14:58, 2 May 2012

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

Resuming AuthorityTam ANI

Incivility from Hearfourmewesique

user:Doktorbuk - removal of cited content and 3RR violations

Coda

Disruptive IP editor

my user page

Community ban proposal for User:Badmachine

Witty vandalism

Blocked IP strikes again with vandalism

Uncommunicative school project

A racist ranting about "white slaveowners" on "African American"

User:Greyhood

Want admin interference for dispute in Kashmiri Pandit

Disruptive editing by Dale Chock

Repeated vandalism by undocumented editors

Unblock request: User:Admarkroundsquare

King Genovese, again

Dave Winer and Irelan12

Harassment by User:Andy Dingley

User:Viriditas and User:Anupam

RevDel required

Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN" (Moved from WP:RS/N)

Persistant IP vandalism

Article: Jack Abramoff, Talkpage; users: 199.209.144.218, 76.73.168.89, Eelnire

Leave a Reply