Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


IP disruption[edit]

User: has made 29 edits to article space in one month, solely to remove {{Marriage}} usage, for which they apparently misunderstand the purpose. Having been warned twice for doing so, they've now nominated the template for deletion. While I will try to trust the process and hope enough editors will notice the proposal, I happened to see it just by accident. I'm more concerned at the strange pattern of an IP editor doing nothing more in a month than attack a particular template – not something that one expects from a newbie. Admin opinion and attention is therefore requested. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User notified at User talk: § Notice of discussion at ANI —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the template's purpose? Questions to this effect on its talk page remain unanswered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I tried in my response to the TfD. The purpose is to standardize the format of marriage information, particularly for use in Infoboxes, and to add microformat tagging for non-human consumption, much like {{Birth date}}, {{Coord}}, {{URL}}, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You did not. We do not use, nor need, templates "to standardize the format" of text. The template applies no "microformat tagging". If you disagree, please explain how it does so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'm part of the same "We" that you are, as am I that templates are routinely used to standardize presentation (e.g. {{Infobox}}), as others have stated at the TfD (where this discussion belongs). The template transcludes {{event}} which is documented to emit microformats. My reason for bringing this to ANI was, as stated above, because of the IP user's strange actions. I'll note that Andy TfD'd this template 3 months ago. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes do more than "standardize the format of text". We don't use templates simply to standardize the format of text in individual template parameters. If {{Marriage}} calls {{event}} to emit a microformat; it does not do so itself. You have still not answered the questions on the template;s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
TFD got closed as no-consensus. I've proposed modifications to the template; please see the "Removing parameters" section of Template talk:Marriage to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I've done some further work or refresh my memory and check the facts. Pages using the template emit no more microformats than those that do not. The only microformat emitted by {{event}}, from the example on its own documentation page, is that emitted by the {{Coord}} template that it calls, for the coordinates. How many marriages do we have, for each we list coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP user has gone silent since the 2nd. If an admin does not want to take up the issue of this possibly being a regular user that wanted to hide behind an IP for this occasion, there's nothing more to be done here. (The template is being dealt with where it belongs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

IP Linking dates on album pages[edit]

A few months ago, I reported IPs from Guatemala that was linking dates despite repeated warnings not to do so. The IPs range was blocked, but after it has expired, the IPs are once again linking dates on the Latin album articles. I warned (talk · contribs) not to do it and reminded the user that the IP was blocked for not listening, and gave (talk · contribs) a final warning for ignoring my message. Let the IP is still disrupting Wikipedia by linking dates on album pages which are clearly against MOS per WP:UNLINKDATES. EDIT: (talk · contribs) is disrupting right now and editing warring with me. Erick (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As the behaviour is continuing in spite of mulitple warningbs, I have gone ahead with another range block of -- Dianna (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Evan2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) The user, a self-described child, has changed without explanation a lot of dates in articles on politicians. A quick spot check indicates there may be some constructive contributions as well, but I have to be offline now so I don't have time to comb through them meticulously but am hesitant to mass-revert. Could someone please help with that and, if there is indeed a problem, issue a preventive block? Rivertorch (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Since the user is about 10 years according to his own information, I blanketed his userpage which had much private information. I think a deletion or oversighting of the page should be considered. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ban - I've reviewed his edits and compared the dates changed with sources from Google, and it's safe to say that he is changing correct dates to incorrect one. I guess I overestimated his ability to edit maturely... YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's not just slap a block template on him and call it a day. He is 10. I'm not sure his "maturity" should be questioned here. Preventative block to stop him from adding incorrect dates, fine, but someone needs to engage with him. Could be a teachable moment. Ditch 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bung him on some mentoring program and let them deal with it.--Launchballer 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checking back in for a moment . . . thanks to all who reviewed the contributions. In looking them over more carefully now, I can see a couple that may have been in good faith but were unacceptable, and the rest were vandalism of the insidious sort that we can't afford to excuse. Between that and the user's inclination to add personal info to his userpage, I think an indefinite block is warranted. If that happens, the blocking admin might leave some friendly wording that won't scare the kid off forever but leaves the door open for a "teachable moment", per Ditch, later on. Scaring him off until he's ready to contribute constructively is probably in everyone's best interests. The alternative to a block is very close monitoring, and I, for one, am not about to volunteer. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Block needed - He's at it again... YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Concerned this will be archived with no action, I have filed a report at WP:AIV. (If that's forum-shopping, I plead guilty.) Rivertorch (talk)
King of Hearts has blocked him for 72hours. Blackmane (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Silly thing, this, but user appears to edit primarily or purely on the basis of original research, with persistent removal of content, even when valid sources are included. Coming here to avert an edit war and request more eyes. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For the Sixth Form article, I feel that I have given a good enough reason as what I have stated is simply fact, plus the information is off-topic. I'm going to incorporate it into another article (Education in Scotland) where it belongs. (Durham.bug (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Just trying to improve the page, I have added edit summaries as of your request. (Durham.bug (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I don't think you understand. It is not your edit summaries (or the lack of) which are at issue or have been reported here, it is the repeated removal of often long-standing sourced and verifiable information with no counter-sourcing. The latter is informative and encyclopeadic; the former disruptive and vandalizing. Cheers. Basket Feudalist 15:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Your "explanation" for obliterating an entire section was that Sixth Form is called Sixth Year and that therefore "Sixth Form" does not exist in Scotand. That's like arguing that children do not exist in Scotland because they are called "bairns", or that colour does not exist in America because it is called "color". We have redirects for terminological differences. Paul B (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Amid the multiple unexplained deletions here [1], I'm curious re: this claim [2], and whether the image does or does not belong. JNW (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
And while not a reliable source, here's a listing of Sixth Forms in Edinburgh [3]. JNW (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Paul, I don't think you understood my edit, it is not a case of differing terminology. Sixth form in England refers to the final two years of secondary education; in Scotland "Sixth Year or S6" refers to the final year of secondary school - "Sixth Forms" do not exist in Scotland. JNW, the Edinburgh list doesn’t appear to be related to secondary education (Durham.bug (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

This should be discussed on the article page. Yes, I was exaggerating a bit. Of course it's a valid point that the structure of the education years is different. That fact is itself notable, and the differences need to be properly explained in the article. Just dumping useful material is not the answer. It diminishes rather than enhances the article. Paul B (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't dumping it, I am going to include the information in another article. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
You were dumping it from the article - an article in which it was usefully present. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the Red Hair article, I would appreciate feedback. The percentage of the world with red hair is not known and the citations for the statement do not go anywhere. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Yes the citations do go to an article. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I made a point of correcting the link to a Washington Post article that corroborated the statement in the lede, though that, too, was reverted, as well as were a number of properly sourced sentences in an earlier deletion, as noted above. A Google search reveals a differing estimate from a Chicago Tribune article [4]; this can also be included, with the explanation that estimates vary. JNW (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the links has been changed now, the article actually states up to 2%, not "1-2%". I personally do not think this is an appropriate source but if you want an inaccurate statement left in the article I'll just leave that up to you guys then. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

In the Red Hair article I have read the link for citation 28 and it does not back up the statement in the wiki page. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

We should move these detailed discussions on sourcing etc to the relevant articles. Paul B (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Show me where Paul. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I've moved the red head stuff to talk:red hair. I've made one section for the Papuan Readheads and one for the percentage debate. Also moving debate to talk:Sixth form. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion has been joined at the red hair talk page, but the rationale for this thread remains the same: the initial edits were vandalism [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]--a content dispute assumes the presence of contradicting sources, something stronger than 'I don't agree'--and subsequent discussion has not changed that impression [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. JNW (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion at talk page is ongoing. This is just to remind Durham.bug that edits against consensus are likely to be reversed, and persistence in edit-warring can lead to a block. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Being dealt with further up. Blackmane (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk: keeps inserting boy band categories even when acts are not boy bands. Please block that IP address. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP User adding category Boy bands indiscriminately[edit]

Blocked 36 hours by AuburnPilot. King of ♠ 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is methodically adding the category Boy bands to articles about musical groups that consist entirely of males. That seems to be this user's only criteria. Almost none of the bands in question fit the definition of a boy band. Many predate the boy band concept and/or were way to old to have been considered a boy band (e.g., the Mills Brothers. Almost all the user's edits are to add this category. The user has been warned on his talk page but is ignoring the warnings. --hulmem (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be careful in labelling his edits as vandalism opposed to good faith edits that are incorrect. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines as to what constitutes as vandalism, nor does it appear any solid attempt has been made to explain why the category may not apply to certain bands whose members are all male. "Please stop! Just because a band has all male members does not make them a Boy band!" at the end of vandalism templates are likely not to be noticed nor does it really explain your position. Mkdwtalk 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a non-templated comment on his talk page from 9 April which very clearly explains why what he is doing is wrong and which asks him to stop. The subsequent warning templates from other users may be more generic in wording but are nonetheless very conspicuous and unambiguous. The user has had sufficient warning that their edits are disruptive and sufficient opportunity to engage in discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This just seems to be a content dispute in which the issue is quite debatable. For example, the Mills Brothers mentioned above started their career quite young, when their ages were 13 to 18. The Beatles are mentioned on the user's talk page as being not a boy band but we have a book entitled Boy Bands: From the Beatles and the Jackson Five to Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync. Warden (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's a debatable issue, then the user should be debating it with the users who disagree with him. But he has no talk space edits and seems to have continued his behaviour after at least two users tried to engage with him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A minor thing, but Hulmem, can you please remember that newer talkpage messages go at the bottom of the user's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • While I agree that the user should ideally discuss, I cannot really see the problem. Wikipedia defines 'boy band' as an all-male group, often vocal but sometime playing instruments as well, that was formed when the members were teenagers or in their twenties. Under that definition, most of IP's edits would be correct. One can disagree with that definition, but I see no reason to call it vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Which, of course, comes from Boy band (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Which isn't a reliable source anyway, and contradicts itself continuously through the article as to what a boy band is. The lede suggests they are vocal groups, then it goes on to list acts such as A-Ha (definitely not, under any definition), The Bay City Rollers and the Raspberries (who appealed to teenage girls, but that was it), and a number that are distinctly borderline. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Its often easier to use cultural memes that define a subject, but provides no hard context for what designates it. Boy band is one such term, while the formation and popularity of the band should be during the teen and early 20s, it is not specific and portrayal in media is the only real gauge backed by a tacit community approval that is largely silent on such topics... Because the definition cannot even be brought down, I'd not call it vandalism either, but make the template be permissible with RS naming the group as a boy band. A band of boys and a boy band are completely different, and some of it could be lost in translation as well. The users intentions are probably good, given the circumstances and confusion around the base definition, it is best to reach out about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea: have a discussion on the talkpage of the catgeory or in WP:MUSIC and determine what the formal paramaters are for what Wikipedia wants as the definition of the term "boy band" as it relates to categories. Once consensus is reached, you have something to point them to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
To call the Mills Brothers a "boy" band is a racial slur. That may or may not be the intent in this instance. In any case an African-American or black male of any age is never called a "boy". It is racist and demeaning. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Now, that is nonsense. I don't necessarily agree that the Mills Brothers are a boy band, but referring to a musical group as a boy band is not racist or a racial slur, under any circumstances. Referring to anyone as a "boy" may be a racial slur, or just a slur, in general, but a boy band is not necessarily comprised of boys. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What is going on here? There is nothing in the world to discuss, this is simple idiotic vandalism and should be dealt with appropriately. This IP editor added the "boy band" category to Nirvana of all things. Step up to the plate and swing for an WP:RBI, please. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just plain vandalism now. He did it again to The Temptations article and that has been reverted already. The IP address should be blocked. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 36 hours and will reblock if this person continues without discussion. Content dispute, vandalism, or disruptive editing, it's irrelevant so long as somebody refuses to communicate. --auburnpilot talk 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zombie block?[edit]

Zombie block met DerHexer's boomstick. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GoodDay is complaining that a block from August 2012 has somehow sprung back to life, preventing him from editing even though no new block has been imposed. Could someone take a look? -Rrius (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds more like an WP:AUTOBLOCK of his IP. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking as well. Sounds like maybe his IP got in trouble. Although if that is the case he should have a message indicating that when he tries to edit I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I checked and it said no autoblock was found. Does that just mean he's caught up in someone else's block or does it mean the problem isn't an autoblock at all? -Rrius (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Really we need to know the message he is getting when he tries to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that just means that if it's an autoblock it's someone else's. However he's saying that it's the block by Coren from August 2012 that has mysteriously sprung back to life - so I presume that must be the block message he's getting. If that's the case, it's got to be a bug. It might be worth throwing this at WP:VPT. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on the message he just posted to his talk page its because he is editing from an open proxy which was blocked by DerHexter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm on it. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock, DerHexer. Also, thanks to everyone here & at my talkpage, for helping me out. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just an aside for any admins who may be perusing, incidents like this are why standard practice at WP:OP has been to no longer indef block IPs, even if they're full of proxies. Generally the upper limit is about 5 years. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SergeantHippyZombie reverting valid anon IP edits[edit]

User warned. Will be blocked the next time he makes inappropriate reverts or inappropriate comments on user talk pages. King of ♠ 00:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am semi-retired from Wikipedia but I do occasionally check ANI (don't ask why), and ever since the recent thread about SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) using Twinkle to revert perfectly valid anonymous IP edits without explanation or helpful reply on his talk page, I've been occasionally checking his contributions. In under five minutes of checking this morning I found several additional problematic Twinkle edits (diffs: [15], [16], [17]) wherein SHZ is reverting the addition of perfectly valid content with no explanation.

To SHZ's credit, the majority of SHZ's reversions are of blatant vandalism, so I personally am unsure how best to proceed. I think aggressively reverting valid contributions by anonymous editors without explanation has a significant chilling effect on people new to the project, and in my opinion conceivably outweighs the positive impact of their valid anti-vandalism efforts. In any event, this pattern is disruptive and has continued unabated since the last ANI discussion, so I'm raising it again here. Ideally, SHZ would be more careful and this would amount to nothing, but given that the pattern has continued perhaps some more action is warranted. Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Despite numerous editors contacting SHZ in this regard, they seem to pretty much regard edits by IPs as vandalism. User page comments such as "if you are an unregistered user, your house will go on fire!!!" do not inspire confidence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We've been down this road before with this user. Note what they have been reverting, and who (including my favorite Portuguese soccer editor)--this is totally not good. I don't know what the answer is. Pulling Twinkle isn't one, since we can't. I don't care if this user gets blocked: "vandal fighters" are a dime a dozen. Few things piss me off as badly as this kind of willy-nilly reverting, with complete disregard or complete incompetence. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulling twinkle is possible in a sanction sense; although, not in a technical sense. My preference would be to say, if you use Twinkle, you'll be blocked end of discussion, no loopholes allowed. He could come back here to get permission in no sooner than a month. That being said, I think he'll end up being blocked anyways. His edits don't appear to be due to a misuse of Twinkle, they're a result of his attitude towards anons. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously, on the next occasion, block the editor for 31 hours to prevent further damage (reverting positive edits) and disruption (valid, good-faith contributors getting pissed on). Are they still posting that IP nonsense, by the way? Was that recent? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's something recent. User: is indeed a vandal so SHZ leaves a comment I think it's blocking time! on the talk page. It's not a useful comment, but I don't think it's entirely problematic. The next comment by SHZ, however, is. After the IP was blocked, he commented we need to send wiki hate!. A comment like that would be inappropriate after the blocking of a user. It's even more inappropriate when an anon is blocked, because somewhere out there, somebody's first experience with behind the scenes Wikipedia is going to be a message that says "we need to send wiki hate!" Ryan Vesey 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What do people think of the modification he made to a welcome message hereRyan Vesey 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Block him now, and then start a discussion on a non-technically-implemented (at first) sanction against him using any automated reversion/warning tool in the future (including undo). gwickwiretalkediting 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is really nothing to do with Twinkle - he could be reverting IP edits easily enough without it. I'll add a further warning to his talk page, and he should simply be blocked next time he makes one of these problematic reverts or edits (like that "wiki hate" one). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What's going on? And am I supposed to revert the suff that has the changed height and weight tag?SHZ and don't forget to sign my guestbook!!! 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Height and weight tag? Huh? Uh, what's going on is explained above, and on your talk page. You are reverting valid contributions from anonymous IP users with no explanation, and it is clear that you are not bothering to check whether these contributions are valid or not before reverting them. It is one thing to make this or this kind of reversion. Those are plainly problematic edits, and you don't exactly need to check sourcing before reverting them (although you should always be careful). But the diffs I list above and on your talk page are not by any stretch of the imagination clearly problematic. You have to double-check contributions like that before reverting them, and you clearly aren't. And the problem is that this has been going on for some time now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move my puppet case[edit]

Mooooving right along. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Rumage to the correct location? I messed up the title and am unable to move it. Pinkadelica 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Pinkadelica 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu[edit]

I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I am sorry that you are disappointed, but at the end of the day, Bagumba and Muboshgu, who I might add are two of our most experienced sports editors, are correct that some of what you added is a copyright violation, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If this makes you want to leave, that is your prerogative, but I would urge you to instead read up on our policies, and then offer to work with either Bagumba or Muboshgu to build up the article Jeff Moorad with good sources, but it's up to you. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 01:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP did not notify either Bagumba or Muboshgu, so I have done so. I'm not really interested in getting heavily involved here, but I doubt that anyone is acting in bad faith. I have great respect for both Bagumba and Muboshgu, and I highly doubt they are trying to cause any trouble. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 01:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate the editor has chosen to tax the community's resources, as the same request was already responded to by another editor at Wikipedia:Help desk. The user's talk page, their lack of constructive involvement to discussions at Talk:Jeff Moorad, and the user's claim of being affiliated with the article and later admission that "I'm not in contact with Mr. Moorad" speaks for itself. The user is now engaged in an edit war to add plagiarized material. An admin might consider actions to prevent further trolling by—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If he ever reads this, in all honesty, he just may need some more explanation. Either that or they're just deliberately not listening. You'd be surprised how many people we have in #wikipedia-en-help that understand after hours of explanation, but otherwise don't. gwickwiretalkediting 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bagumba suggested to the IP on the talk page that he/she could benefit from the Teahouse. That would've been much more appropriate than this. I deleted unsourced cruft and placed various inline tags where vague detail was given. I later realized it was plagiarized from the MLB page, which is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor(s) using accounts solely to adverstise[edit]

Section Cross was just indeffed by Daniel Case for his username only. But the editor is obviously using the account solely to advertise some alleged political party similarly named Cross Section. I'm not sure if Daniel even looked at the edits to see if the account can be indeffed totally just for the editing, but check out the post the editor made at the help desk, and the article they created. That'll make it clear what's going on. And now there's a new account that's surely the same editor... a couple minutes after the block, MitchAnth popped up as a new editor and is making the same edits. -- (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel is very accomplished in this area, 76*, I wouldn't be too concerned WRT to the spam on the indeffed user. I'll check the other situation in the event Daniel's not around. Tiderolls 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to write Daniel directly, but apparently IPs can't post on his talk page. Sorry, but I do get concerned when I see spramming like this and articles like this being created. And then more concerned when I see an apparent block-evader with a new account doing the same things. -- (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
My intent was to assuage your concern, not condemn it in any way. Tiderolls 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Sorry if I came across as less than appreciative. :) (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The username was sufficient to justify the indef block. Had it been reported at UAA, I might have used {{uw-spamublock}}, but it was at AIV instead so I wasn't thinking in a username frame of mind (and I was also using my iPad from a table at a meetup while conversing and eating, to add to the distraction). Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmt: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages, Daniel Case should have "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." I would post this on his talk page, but.... ;) Rgrds. -- (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about doing that, to be honest. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Daniel. My concern was not the spamming in and of itself, but the editor's clearly outrageous and disruptive behavior in how s/he executed the spamming... at the help desk, with the article they created, etc. So, to me, simply saying... hey, I'm only blocking you because of your username sends the message that the edits were acceptable (because nothing was said about it). There are many nice, cooperative spammers who simply don't understand the rules until someone teaches them, but this editor crossed the line not only by his editing, but by ignoring all admonitions.. One final thought... I think registered users, especially admins, should not treat IPs like second class citizens. I have to be honest, it hurt my feelings when I came to your page and realized I couldn't write to you. And I was really surprised... I was like... wow, I can't even post a message to him. That's why I came here. I'm sure you're a great admin, but I hope you'll consider opening up your talk page to everyone. Remember, it's not just IPs who occasionally cause trouble on people's talk pages. I've seen quite a bit of very hostile talk page posting from registered users. ;) (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that username blocks and softerblocks are grossly overused. In my experience, in well over 90% of cases where a user is given a block message saying "your username is the only reason for the block", the user has been using Wikipedia for promotion. Telling such a user that there is no other reason for the block than their username is unhelpful for at least three reasons. (1) It is totally unfair to that user, as it encourages them to continue with the same kind of editing, which is likely to be a waste of their time and lead to another block. (2) It is unhelpful to Wikipedia, as it results in more spam, which could have been stopped. (3) It makes it difficult for administrators who assess unblock requests. I used to frequently assess unblock request from such users, and what do you say to someone who has explicitly been told that it is perfectly all right to carry on with the same kind of editing as before, provided they make a new account, when you decline a request to be allowed to do exactly that? Now, when I check for unblock requests, whenever I see "your username is the only reason for the block", I almost always move on to another request, leaving that one, because it is likely to be just too much hassle. Judging from how long such requests tend to stay in the queue, it seems likely that a lot of other admins do the same. Finally, it is not just matter of what message is given to the user. It is also a matter of blocking without disabling account creation, which means that a new account appears, and sometimes (though not always) it is not immediately obvious that it is the same spam-only user. As far as I am concerned, if I block a promotion-only account, I make it clear to the user that promotion is part, if not all, of the reason for the block, and I disable account creation, so that they have to undertake not to spam if they want a new account. I reserve "your username is the only reason for the block" for the much rarer situations where the username really is the only reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. In such cases I almost always use a spam username block, {{Uw-spamublock}}, which makes it clear that the promotional activity is the big problem but also covers the username problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Daniel, while definitely one of the good guys, is clearly on the gentler side of things (though in the past he's said he really doesn't see himself that way) compared to my position on spammers (and those who commit marketing on these pages in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Daniel is a very good administrator, and I have high respect for him. However, I do tend to take a different line than him towards anyone I see as using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Also, in response to what Boing! said Zebedee said above, some time ago I gave up using the standard "spamusername" block template, because in my experience it is too complex and confusing. It tries to cover everything relevant, rather than just the most important points, no doubt with the intention of being helpful to the blocked user. However, in practice, it is not helpful to most blocked users, because there is too much information for them to take in, which very frequently results in users making good faith unblock requests that are declined because they don't address the reasons for the block. Also, it seems to me that being confronted with such a long wall of text in a big orange box is likely to look unnecessarily intimidating to the user. Instead, I now use a much shorter and simpler message of my own. My message briefly states that the block is for promotion, explains that promotion is against Wikipedia policy, mentions that the username is also against policy, and says how to request an unblock. It is 88 words long, excluding the signature, compared with 457 words for the standard spamusername block message. I believe that my message is more user-friendly, as well as clearer and less subject to misinterpretation than the standard message. Also, in my experience, it does not lead to anywhere near so many unblock requests that completely miss the point. Maybe I should make a template of it and make it available for more general use, just in case there is some other administrator somewhere who feels as I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. While the great majority of users I block like this never come back (they're mostly one-off blatant attempts to promote a company), I do see a lot of spamusername unblock appeals where the editor has not understood at all. It might be very useful to have a template version of your warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Trolling by[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been tying up numerous editors on Talk:Robert B. Bell with a repeated frivolous semi-protected edit request. The anon. editor wants to include unreliable information about one of the most-trolled individuals on the internet who is of no notability by wiki standards. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_20#Christian_Weston_Chandler and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler. Despite repeated attempts to explain things to the user by at least 4 different editors, the anon persists in mis-using the template and trying to violate WP:BLP. Actually, if you look at the IPs contribs, you'll see pretty much nothing but attempts to add CWC material to Wikipedia. At this point, I'm pretty sure the IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to spread the trolling of CWC. This list edit summary accusing me of trolling/vandalism for trying to politely explain policies is the final evidence that the account is just here to troll wiki and/or CWC. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, regarding calling my actions "trolling."
You are incorrect about my user contributions; I invite anyone reading this to look through them to see the truth. If I have spent more time than I wanted to on the Bell edit request, it's because the editor above keeps trying to close it before discussion can be had on it. If the above editor finds the sources that I have posted (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles and television news reports, as well as official court documents) "unreliable" the above editor has a right to their own erroneous opinion. We can discuss it on the the talk page, or not, and we'll see what others have to say. But the above editor should not try to shut down discussion because he/she happens to disagree with the request in the first place.
In short, the above editor should handle this like an adult and let the process take its course like it's supposed to. (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I closed the edit request as not done; there is obviously no consensus to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)\
There needs to be a reasonable period to discuss it, first. Obviously there can't be consensus if the discussion is shut down almost immediately in a knee-jerk way by editors such as Sailsbystars. (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You discuss and form consensus before pinging all of us who watch the template with a request. Not after. gwickwiretalkediting 02:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope. I was told by an administrator on this very noticeboard to make the request due to the edit filter's false positives, as I have pointed out numerous times. (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
They were assuming in good faith that you had legitimate edits to make, which you really haven't shown. In spite of badgering us on the talk page for two weeks now, where you've argued about policy, deleted people's comments, and reverted people when they disagree with you, you STILL haven't provided a reliable secondary sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY is abundantly clear that a reliable secondary source is required. Do that and I'll make the edit myself. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Iyad Burnat[edit]

The Iyad Burnat article would probably benefit from semi-protection and revdel-ing all the tagged BLP violations per WP:CRD. The article appears to be under attack by ultranationalists or possibly some kind of hobby club for sociopaths, hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected by NawlinWiki. BLPvios are probably bad enough to warrant revdeletion, assuming the article survives AfD. —Rutebega (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs edit-warring in conspiracist claims[edit]

semi protected 3 months. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article on Collapse of the World Trade Center is being hit with some serious edit-warring by various IPs pushing the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. One IP was blocked, but semi-protection is clearly needed and the POV-pushing IPs should probably also be blocked. At least one belongs to a proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi, I am currently involved in an edit war with user:LTblb because he refuses my edits (corrections) in several articles (the principal, Spain).

The issue started with user:Bashevis6920. He changed the data about the Metropolitan Areas of Spain without consensus, he removed all (MA) data from the article, and he added/introduced random and sourceless figures, as he stated the data of Bilbao and Málaga were/are wrong.

I think user:LTblb-user:Bashevis6920-user:Alex320000 are the same person (it is a kind of sockpuppet user). This user refuses to correct metro areas, typo, spelling and pronunciation because he says I haven't reached a consensus... But how can we reach a consensus if we start with lies, and there is always an antagonic actor who refuses all my edits, and edits what he wants or likes...

Can an expert help us here, please? Alburzador (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

* Here Bashevis6920 changed the previous reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus) Alburzador (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. By my count, You're at nine reverts while LTblb is at ten. Everyone Dies In the End warned you both at 0230 UTC. Talk:Spain is the place you should be now, not here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Its always amazed me that the most fractious debates on WP usually revolve around diacritics.
@Alburzador - I would cease the edit war and try to discuss the changes that you are making one-by-one on the talkpage. If you reach something that you simply can't agree on with User:LTblb, consider an WP:RfC! Good luck. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this withdrawal of a legal threat sufficient?[edit]

Indeffed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harleyborgais (talk · contribs) has been making legal threats. I asked him to explicitly withdraw them and the response is:

"For the time being I will promise not to attempt any legal actions against anyone on this issue, even though I disagree with you. For now I will carefully ponder all of your comments and as soon as I have the time to return to this issue I will respond to all of your comments here. I will present evidence to support all of my claims, and withdrawal any that I feel you have proven me wrong on.

As I sat considering which charges I would bring, the only ones that came up were severe: Crime against humanity (for spreading false info that cause harm [injury, loss, or detriment], treason [if in the US, for giving aid and comfort to enemies of our Constitution], and potentially fraud [though I cannot see a gain on your part, unless you have interests which I find difficult to believe considering the inherent righteousness of what you actually do here]. It was never my intention to press charges that severe, as the harm does not seem severe enough to warrant the punishments these bring.

Anyways, until I have more time and am able to respond to everything, I will take NO legal actions against anyone on this issue."

This doesn't look like a withdrawal to me but statement that he may still take legal action. If you look at his talk page and his few article edits, I don't think he is going to get very far editing in any case. But on the NLT issue, does anyone see a reason not to block him? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Even if he did mean to retract rather than just put on hold his (outrageously ridiculous) legal threats, his other recent postings show he's some kind of fringe nutter (Sovereign citizen movement-promotion and stuff), so there's nothing positive to expect from his contributions. Fut.Perf. 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. He's convinced he's right, that labor taxes are illegal, ditto home foreclosures, you don't need a driving licence, etc. He's in the wrong place. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank god he's not representative Face-wink.svg Basket Feudalist 11:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else think it is rather ironic that a "sovereign citizen" nutter fringe theorist is threatening legal action, in courts that he presumably doesn't believe are legally constituted?--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boston Marathon bombings[edit]

Protected for 2 weeks. That's all folks! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Will someone please consider semi-protecting the article pronto? Both Writ Keeper and I are somewhat involved in a content dispute, and the article keeps getting disrupted by IP editors sticking unsourced North Korean pressure cookers in it. [FWIW, the content dispute wouldn't be affected by semi-protection since it involves registered editors, but I'm not putting my head on the chopping block again.] Quickly please: it's already busy enough. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I had already protected it for a week, which I felt was very mild, but Zzuuzz reverted me [18] without notifying or discussing with any of us that had been involved with the protection. I don't mind being reverted, but I should have been notified (before or after) out of courtesy. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's strange, Dennis. When you discussed this with me on the talk page, yesterday, you were adamant that the place to make requests for page protection is WP:RFPP, so that's where I went. Yet here you are asking the boys at ANI to circumvent WP:RFPP. I wonder why you would do such a thing. Then again, it looks as though the result here is a foregone conclusion, so maybe that's why you would do such a thing. (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:RFPP is the proper place to make a simple protection/unprotection request, but as soon as it proves controversial and appears to need discussion, this is the appropriate forum to seek consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would also add that it is normal for an admin considering reverting another admin to discuss with him (or them), or at a minimum, notify afterwards. I found out that I had been reverted only by going through the edit history and seeing recent IP edits, then having to chase it down. Even now, I notified him and Bongwarrior of this discussion since they were previously involved. Had I and Bongwarrior been invited at WP:RFPP, it might could have been handled there instead, but now requires a full community discussion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • [EC]It wasn't in the least controversial. I made the request; it was discussed, left overnight, and then uprotected. It's clear from Dennis's comments on his talk page that he is peeved because he didn't get his own way, so he's come here to make sure he does. There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't have taken this request to WP:RFPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It quite clearly *is* controversial - or have you not seen the section below? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that this was not a reversion, but an un-semi-protection. Although a time frame needs to be fixed when setting the protection, this time is not fixed as if law. We should unprotect when protection is no longer necessary, and one of the ways of doing that is by 'testing the water'. Anyway, Dennis' view on unprotection was previously made clear on the talk page. For WP:RFUP to work properly, it must take into account these views, which is something I did (as well as reviewing all edits to the article and its talk page). I maintain that unprotection was worth a try. It should be obvious that if protection is required again it should be applied again, and I will not be bothered if it is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for two weeks semi-protection[edit]

  • Support as proposer, this should make it simple. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - lots of people editing without understanding our policies, and this is understandably a hot button topic right now. Let's direct these folks to the talk page so experienced editors can guide them. LadyofShalott 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil. Protection should be only for as long as necessary, not until some arbitrary date in the future. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I largely suspect you feel votes are evil when they don't go your way. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Protection can always be reduced if a consensus finds it is no longer needed, but when protecting, you must pick a time frame. There is no "as long as needed" option. The last case like this, Sandy Hook, I took it to WP:AN and the consensus was one month, so I'm already erring on the light side here and in my previous protection. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The North Korea has already hopped to at least one new IP to continue posting his thing, and sadly, I don't think this is going to be the last of the wild claims we hear about this. In an overabundance of caution (and with no small regret, since there are definitely constructive IP edits to that page, as well), I think this is needed. (Note: as mentioned above by Drmies, I did and still do consider myself too involved with the article (particularly in a dispute over one of the victims' name) to protect it myself). Writ Keeper  16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - it's clearly going to continue to attract problematic "North Korea" IP edits for a while yet -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: BLP violations are evil. In fact, one can make a case for full protection given the number of editors sticking in a victim's name against consensus on the talk page, against common sense, and against WP:V. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - original protection was sensible, now even more so - no idea what zzuuzz was/is playing at. GiantSnowman 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Some IPs obviously want to help, but with current events like this, we tend to see first-time contributions and vandalism. —Rutebega (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There has been very little vandalism since the page was unprotected. As soon as a vandal does pop-up there is a proposal to protect the page for 2 weeks. What vandalism there has been was removed instantaneously. The vandalism has not been an impediment to editing. There are more eyes on that article than on just about any other. It just needs a few admins to keep an eye on it and block the vandals as they crop up. By doing that you will keep the article available for all to edit. That's what WP is supposed to be about. That's what admining is supposed to be about. (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, but admins aren't always around. This one is gone for now. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well we have had about half a dozen admins show up here in the space of five minutes to vote to exclude unregistered users from the page for 2 weeks. Perhaps one or two of those would be good enough to keep an eye on it, thereby keeping the page open to all. (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a high visibility page, and there is demonstrated persistent vandalism. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support enough disruption to justify semi, not sure why it was removed, to be honest. No need to make more work for ourselves. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Lord no. You wouldn't want to give yourselves any more work. One reason you might have wanted to would be to make sure that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but ... nah. (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Of course, yes, that's why we all become admins in the first place - to enjoy a life of avoiding having to do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's done[edit]

I've extended the semi-protection (and the full move protection) for an additional 2 weeks. There seems to be fairly strong support for such an action, which is actually not that big of a deal in the first place; we routinely use semi-protection in this manner on high-profile, controversial in-the-news topics. MastCell Talk 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) The discussion was archived just as I was gonna say my thing! Here it is anyway: Support (if my support means anything, as I'm not an admin). I personally wouldn't be upset if the page went full-protected. I doubt that's the best course of action, but I certainly wouldn't be upset. Ignatzmicetalk 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Me too. re:zebedee. How many admins in this 10 minute old vote? How many voting to take the lazy way out? How many voting to keep the encyclopedia open? (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not the "lazy way out" - it's what page protection is for. People died. Other people are vandalizing a sensitive topic. PP is created for just such a situation. If you don't like it, Conservapedia is somewhere else ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The user above name KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been committed a series a behavioral issues during a clash of reliable sources over box-office gross references as seen on this section on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as well as this part on WP:FILM. He has been doing disruptive editing on several film articles and replace sources from Box Office Mojo with a less reputable source name on what he believes that he doesn't consider BOM (Box Office Mojo) reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary total on various films such as Red Dawn, which the foreign gross only shows n/a as well as some other films recently, including The Call, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Side Effects, The Man with the Iron Fists, 21 & Over and Snitch. While it seems to be good faith edit, his behavioral edits at some of our talk pages over the issue isn't really polite and friendly-community at anyway. This part of my talk page is one those examples, as well as the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part and Betty Logan as well as the two noticeboard sections above. According to many on RS/N on this issue, BOM is said to be the most reliable sources for box-office gross as seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We don't even know if gets any outside news reference in anyway. Sure, there is conflicting reports on BOM and on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most realible sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archeives section here. KahnJohn27 continues to stick to his opinions and rashly berates us on our talk pages and the noticeboards at us for contradicting accuracy on worldwide box-office gross and accusing most of us of such violations, not to mention he's a high-school student as well and his English grammar isn't really the best as well. We tried to be reasonable and polite with him, but he just won't stop being disruptive.

All I asking is to do something with him before this dispute with him gets any worse. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified user, which you should have done. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I have already told that they Red Dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone etc are not the only examples of BOM's unreliabilty. There are several other movies where this problem occurs. However I have never said that BOM should be completely discounted. Not only that I also proved that even where this so-called "n/a" problem is present, I have also proved that the total foreign box office gross is incorrect in case of many movies like Dredd and Man With the Iron Fists. And no I am not letting it go and the status of it being reliable or unreliable will be decided by the discussion. Because these users seem to be making up the same reason of BOM not updating their figures. How are we to believe what they are saying. I think until now except including some times I have been mostly civil. I've only passed one insult to you and I.already had apologised for that. If my behavior seems to be combative to you just because I do not mince words then that is a problem with your attitude not mine. I never personally attacked you and only reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone once. Also after that I accepted it. You have forgotten that even if the consensus seems to be going in your favor reverting someone's edits still counts as edit-warring because consensus has not been reached yet. If this is a strong-arm tactic to stop me being able to discuss this matter then I'm afraid that will not work because that is not the way things work around here. Also I ask what is wrong with giving proof of innocence? You kept saying that I have combatic behavior so the only options I had was to show a proof of innocence that I didn't. Also you should know that Tenebrae deleted my comments on his talk page saying "rants of a high school user". I ask from which angle is this civil behavior? Unfortunately it's not me but you who have constantly induldged in combatic and implotic behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, and such. You've been bashing at us when we tried to be reasonable to you, but you continue to be disruptive and uncivil, not to mention you bully at us. You also been accusing with such violations that we never violated anything on this site, regardless of what you think. Do you think your bullying is going to help. It's not going to help out on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to bully you. If I was trying to bully you instead of saying that everyone's opininions matters I would have said that I am right and you're wrong. Also I myself said that only by contacting the sources we can find out the truth. I don't think that is combative behavior at all. If you think my behavior is combative then it can only mean two things. Either you're misinterpreting my statements completely. MarnetteD said that anyone who says "they're trying to do.the right thing" is trying to enforce his opinion. That's a gross representation of my statement. Apart from that what you were calling as rants on his and Tenebrae's talkpage when in actual I was trying to prove myself innocent. I had particpated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games here ( and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources here ( They never even said anything about any disruptive behavior and they were perfectly cooperative me. Also you say that my grammar is incorrect while you have made such mistakes yourself. That is no reason for discounting someone's opinion. Tenebrae called my comments as rants of high school student. I ask what kind of behavior is that? You have been induldging in combative behavior yourself. I agree I have been rash many times but I still have shown respect towards everyone's opinion. If I really have been combative then my punishment will be decided by the admins. I assure you that I'm not bullying anyone but simply speaking the truth. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You're the reason that this dispute happened in the first place. You have been combative about the box-office issues and such. is questionable at this point and I don't think it has any reliable outside online news reference that we know of. BOM has outside outline news references on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Don't you see? Box-office numbers and production budget costs differ in those sites, regardless of whatever it says n/a on the foreign gross and such, so we don't know whatever or not is reliable and accurate, whatever it's domestic and foreign gross. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Also please note that BattleshipMan seems to have a habit of always exaggerating matters. I'm not trying to bully anyone but am saying what I see. I don't think statements like "KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice." can be classified as civil. If you want to talk Boxoffice. com and BOM please talk about it on reliable sources noticenoard. Abd anyway unlike Box Office Mojo BOM doesn't have this n/a problem. Also Hollywood Reporter and Variety do not use BOM as a source for Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw Massacare 3D and all other films where BOM has provided incorrect figures. Can you not see that? We all are trying to reach a peaceful solution and I humbly thank you for that. That's why I ask that please forget past transgressions and let's work towards making Wikipedia better. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, the irony! "always exaggerating matters" Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, you may does some good faith editing, but it is not with the consensus that we should use yet. You may think your not trying to bully anyone, but you are disruptive editor, whatever you realized or not and you bash us for reverting your edits on film articles. Good faith edits are not always right and no one can take someone's word for it. Sometimes someone can unintentionally cause an edit war, like you did with some of film articles and can put stress on other editors. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't wanna blame anyone but in actual it was MarnetteD and yourself who had reverted the edits at Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call respectively. Even though I agree that at that time consensus was not in my favor but it was already known that a clear decision still won't have been possible because it couldn't be ascertained why was this n/a problem there on BOM and the user knew also that admin intervention was to be requested. Also please note that User:MarnetteD has been accused of having combative behavior on ymy talk page. Technically I think it's more of her fault and if you think that I had participated in an edit warring then the blame for triggering it in first place should go on Marnette and you too while the discussion was going on. I hope you do not mistreat this an insult. Because this is what had really happened. Apart from that edit war means indiscriminately reverting each other's edits. However since we have reverted edits of each other 3 or 4 times I am not in favor of calling it an edit war. Also I'll like you to note about 2 of the 4 users who have said that my behavior is combative and implosive actually themselves behaved in such manner. Although user Tenebrae has ony gotten into once MarnetteD on the other hand has a much more serios combative behavior and from what I've seen on her talk page she has resorted to such behavior with multiple users and something must be done about this. I know and confirm that your's and Betty Logan behavior has been civil. That's why I request you to please ask MarnetteD to stop behaving in such a disrputive way with editors who oppose her view. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated issue; should be in its own discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

─────────────────────────While it neither has any interest or relevance for me to comment on any of the above, I do have a concern about the general attitude of User:MarnetteD, which I want to add here in support of KahnJohn27. My brief experience (perhaps all too brief?) with her was not too pleasant. But it need not have been that way.

You can see at the end of the section of the talk page HERE I'm taking the time to try to explain something as genuinely and as clearly as possible, which subsequently gets offhandedly dismissed as a "Wall of text" (by the way a few paragraphs does not a "wall of text" make, check HERE for a REAL wall of text and see how User Acroterion has shown considerable patience and fairness beyond what I would consider the "call of duty"). Having never heard the expression "wall-of-text" before the discussion with MarnetteD, I was deeply offended, as it completely missed the points I was trying to make. The discussion ended by another user actually providing some constructive input in the form of references, which is what MarnetteD should have done from the beginning. I think user MarnetteD is impatient, inconsiderate and ill-mannered and needs some diplomacy skills. Up until now I was considering my run-in with her a personal matter that I had to deal with myself, in my own way, under the restrictive umbrella of Wikipedia, but now I see she treats others the same way. I see also she removes comments on her talk page that happen to disagree with her point of view (check the revision history of her discussions)! Its no longer a personal matter, its a civil matter, which should be of interest to Wikipedia as a whole.

I was reluctant to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia admin before because I just wanted to take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience, and frankly I didn't think the "abuse" was serious enough to report. I may have been wrong, now that I see its happening elsewhere. Its not just about me any more, its about other users as well. I added a comment to her talk page as part of KahnJohn27's discussion there, and she now has removed the whole discussion! See how she compared me to an "insect" in her edit summary (see the revision history)! Ha ha! What stupendous arrogance! I was providing an opportunity for "talking" on her "talk" page, and she then resorts to personal attack! It seems she's incapable of taking any constructive criticism, let alone actually responding to it in a civilized and humane manner! As a senior editor she has a responsibility (like all editors) to be more gracious with newer editors such as myself and KahnJohn27, and not be so dismissive, since it is well accepted that newer editors can add just as much value (sometimes more, with a fresh perspective) as established editors do. Newer editors should be encouraged, not dismissed. I've only started editing in the last few months (despite having an account for 3 years), learning about policy as I go along, but not unsympathetic to those also are still learning. I would have left Wikipedia after her dismissive attitude, had it not been for the timely and more encouraging intervention of other editors. -- Jodon | Talk 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to add my voice to those with concerns about KahnJohn27's disruptive behavior, which includes passive-aggressive bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at this noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Tenebrae. Beating a dead horse and bludgeoning editors with a huge amount of text and forum shopping counts as disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I must concur with Tenebrae's assessment of this problematic editor. To get a full understanding of what several of us have had to put up with you will need to read through this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. Here are a few items that need to be pointed out
  1. KahnJohn 27 first post includes this statement "I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means." You will note the combative tone, the insult to the two editors that had already posted there and the attitude about our policy regarding WP:RSs.
  2. K implies with this statement "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not" that everyone who has posted there is being dishonest. K again implies that all who disagree with K are inexperienced and that the reason that K has used that insult is "Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes." That never worked for any students that I have been around and it certainly won't work for long time and experienced Wikipedia editors.
Please read the rest of the thread to see other examples. K was then recommended to get input from the RS noticeboard and began this thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Again you will need to read through the various posts there but it should be noted that after K was not getting the responses K wanted K went on a spree [19] of posting [20] on the individual [21] talk pages of editors who had disagreed with K. Some of us got fed up with the continued insults and removed the threads from our talk pages which we have every right to do.
In my very first post I had suggested that K not turn this situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That was ignored and K's behavior since then has hit most of the items in that section of WP:ISNOT as well as several others on that policy page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
What do you suggest we should do at this point? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
More unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An apology from MarnetteD for her dismissive attitude to me, at least, would go a long way. I don't think I'm asking too much. -- Jodon | Talk 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
About BattleshipMan I stand by what I said. Not only he is continuously harassing me and he himself is beating a dead horse. If he continues this harrasment then there is no choice at all left for me. Continuously blaming someone is direct bullying. Especially WP:RS noticeboard which is no place for commenting about someone's If my remarks seems to be passive bullying then I suggest all uses MarnetteD to look at her behavior first. I have read her talk page and her seems to be the most disruptive. This user is constantly bullying other editors. Apart from that I agree my behavior is rash but I don't think it is combative or either disrespectful. I am now carefully selecting my words. Apart from that the point of a debate or consensus is to take all points. After passing that inexperienced insult I haven't passed any personal or bullying remark. I would like to know BattleshipMan and Betty Logan to know that the reason I insulted them was because I really thought they were new users. I sincerely apologise for that remark. A bullying or combative user never uses words like "please", "I apologise sincerely", "I accept my mistake", "I request you to". Also as I have already said that you are always misrepresenting my statements. I ask how does "I'm only trying to do the right thing" idms enforcing opinion. Yes I am trying to do the right thing by putting forward points with concrete proof. According to rules of consensus there is nothing wrong in disproving other's statement when you have proof for it. And last but not least I sincerely ask what does poor grammar have to do anything in determining someone's behavior or that their edits are in good faith or disruptive? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Also what users are calling as rants or wall-text or spree they are merely just proof of my innocence. There is nothing wrong with proving yourself innocent no matter how long or cubersome the proof is. Removing somebody's comments as rants is however actual combative behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually, KahnJohn, these editors are not beating a dead horse, but rather, trying to help you understand how policy works, and to show you that consensus is running against you. They've devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to doing so, long past what many editors would do in these circumstances, and yet you continue to push the issue beyond the point where there's any possibility of the resolution you demand.

I stumbled into this discussion and the one below as an outsider, and from that perspective, have real concerns about KahnJohn's ability to understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what doesn't. From my perspective, and for what that's worth, what we have here is one inexperienced editor who lacks much understanding of the basics of Wikipedia policy and so, when challenged, takes on a battleground stance on an issue. His arguments in the discussion cited by MarnetteD remind me of WP:SOUP argument; he's decided his source is right and he's going to go hunting for what he perceives as errors on the part of the established source, most easily explained, and attempts to use them to discredit the source as a whole in favor of the one he prefers. Meanwhile, he remains blind to the problems with the source he favors when they are pointed out to him. Worst, he goes through periods where he will calm down and discussion reasonably, then suddenly his rhetoric becomes aggressive and threatening (a threat couched in polite language is still a threat), which is what got us here. This user requires some decisive administrative action, perhaps a short cooling-off block and/or topic ban, and at the very least, a mentor. Otherwise, his future looks bleak, and will be littered with a succession of discussions such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already intervened on both KahnJohn's talk page and the RS noticeboard. We will not be taking administrative action at this time. Also, note that 'cool-off' blocks are not sanctioned by policy.
I'll discuss the rest of KahnJohn's comments on their talk page when I'm home from work. m.o.p 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
All I can say is that I am not threatning anyone and nor I have calming down or agressive periods. Repeatedly blaming someone is also a kind of bullying.Also as I have already said that my behavior has been most civil. An editor with disruptive behavior doesn't accept his mistakes. I still think that some of the editors themselves seem to have conflicting behavior and I cannot be blamed for it. It is their own responsibility. You cannot say that user caused you to become impolite. It is your own responsibility. I think the admins themselves know that I remained civil most of the time no matter how much abuse was directed to me. Apart from that I still stand by the fact that BOM hasn't been proved reliable in those cases where it's foreign gross is inaccurate or incorrect. A consensus always needs proof. A combative user doesn't respect others opinions. However I have every time even though the users complaining about me haven't sometimes. I think that's all I can say about this topic. I trust your judgment. Apart from that as I have already accepted my behavior is rash but I don't think it's combative. Last but not least I have earned praise from 4 editors including m.o.p. for my respectful and helpful nature and always standing by the truth. I am not trying boast about myself but stating the fact that I'm atleast not disruptive. After the discussion of and is over I will take a break from editing Wikipedia atleast for 3 months except grammar corrections or where I think I really need to do something. I will try to focus myself on improving my behavior and make it more polite and less rash. I can atleast promise that but I cannot guarantee the end results. I really hope you understand that. But my behavior will be somewhat more refined I can promise. I trust your judgment. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This post above combined with this [22] response to m.o.p on K's talk page show that absolutely nothing has changed. This rather extraordinary statement "I'm sorry m.o.p. but I cant back off from this issue. I hope you understand it's not because of my pride or it is correct according to me. It's no more just about or BOM but also bringing about positive change to Wikipedia and if I alone have to do it I'll still do it.". This combined with the diatribe above fulfills almost all of the items at WP:NOTHERE and basically confirms all of the concerns expressed by most of the editors involved in this thread. The continued WP:PAs are tiresome but unlikely to stop. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Good for you. As it can already be seen that MarnetteD has always been misrepresenting other's statements. Apart from that yes I cannot quit because of bullies like you on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in saying that I waNot only that the only person who in actual has combative behavior is MarnetteD. There is nothing wrong in trying to bring positive change to Wikipedia. That is the goal of every editor. And yes if I alone have to do I still will do it. As stated in WP:BOLD and near every other policy "just do it". And so you do not misrepresent that I mean to say bring the positive change and every other editor do so. Not only that yes I will try to improve my behavior. There's nothing wrong in that. Apart from that there's no reasoning with you. So I don't think there's no point in keep on trying to explain to you. Still thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn, do you see the irony of saying if I alone have to do I still will do it? You do understand what "consensus" means?
Added to that, BOLD is a guideline, not a policy, and clearly within the guideline it says but please be careful. In fact, right after the phrase you quote above ~ just do it ~ comes (With civility, please!), which seems to have slipped past your attention. Not that you are being specifically rude, but the walls of text, even "proving innocence", can be uncivil, and ignoring consensus, even if you believe it to be mistaken, is definitely so.
If you are utterly convinced that everyone but you is wrong, i.e. that consensus is mistaken, the answer is to work to change consensus, not to ignore it. You'll find it easier ~ not to mention more productive ~ in the long run. Cheers, LindsayHello 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When I said I'll do it alone I wasn't at all referring to the consensus. What I have meant as even if eveyone becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth. Apart from pointing out the obvious I think that it is known by everybody that sometimes we cannot ascertain what is a user really impying. For example sometimes a praise is an insult which is a real irony. Yes I have tried to make the discussion more productive. Wikipedia policies always say to try bring a positive change which I have tried very hard to. I have not said that I will try to keep on trying to prove BOM unreliable. No I have instead said that I will support the decision of the consensus if it is fair. Honestly to say I still think it is somewhat unfair but still most of it seems to be fair to me. The statement "I'll alone do if it have to" is the same as saying "never ever give up except to convictions of honour and good sense" said by William Churchill. Also please not that he also used the word enemy but I am clearly not saying that anybody is my enemy here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No, you really do not see the irony....let's quote this again: "....if eveyone (sic!) becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth...". Could it be that if virtually everybody else is saying you are wrong....well, that there might be some truth to it. We do not have a truth (TM), really. And telling you you might be wrong is not bullying, either. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, KahnJohn, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're beginning to run in circles and it's - forgive me for being blunt - a bit of a time-suck for everyone involved, including you. Where in MarnetteD's message above was your statement misrepresented? The editor merely expressed an opinion, which is perfectly acceptable.
I understand that you feel like you're being targeted, but I keep getting sent on wild goose chases through editor's contributions because you accuse them of being combative/bullying you/misrepresenting you/etc - then, in the end, nothing substantial shows up. Unless you can provide a diff of statements you think are unfair, you need to focus on more-productive things. It may sound a bit bleak, but a thicker skin is a benefit on Wikipedia. If someone makes a blatant (and I mean blatant) personal attack on you, then we can do this dance. Until then, let's stop playing "he said she said" and work on the actual content dispute.
Please don't take this personally. I am not trying to shut you down. As I've said multiple times, I understand that you're editing with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. And I'll do everything I can (within reason) to help you if you're feeling shaky about some policies or need a hand. In return, all I ask is that you tone it down a notch. And, if this is causing you real-life stress, remember that you're always welcome to step away for a while - take a Wikibreak, go for a walk. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. m.o.p 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not running in any circles. Because I already said that it was not related to the discussion. Also please note that my decision to never quit inspite of difficult circumstances and sometimes bullying by other editors and always standing by truth. Apart from that I don't blame anyone for being blunt. They deserve praise. Aside from that MarnetteD clearly misrepresented my statements when she clearly knew what I meant when I said "I can't back down because somebody tells me to" that some editors(only 2 actually) tried to bully me and that's why this statement was made in the first place. Also this is not the ony time she has misrepresented my statements and she has shown agressive and rude behavior. Aside from that I sincerely thanks m.o.p. for caring. Yes I agree this discussion has put some stress to me mostly because of the direct bullying attitude of some editors and their continuous harrasment. Still I think it's better to forgive everyone no matter how wrong anyone might be. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said, a thicker skin will be highly beneficial if you can manage it. If someone says something that bugs you, it's easiest to just let it go - if they continue harassing you, you may ask for help. But, in this case - and trust me, I've seen a lot of disputes over my eight years here - it isn't that big of a deal.
As for the stress, try not to let anything get to your head. At the end of the day, you are a volunteer, and you are free to step away whenever things get too hectic. Just remember; try to focus on editing, ignore any offhand remarks, do your best to discuss civilly when necessary, and you'll do just fine. m.o.p 07:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apart from that yes I still stand by what I said about my statement because that is what I really meant. I am honest and will always stand by what I say. Ofcourse my behavior is impolite and rash which I myself accepted that but I wonder why most editors nearly always forget to mention that. I think I have said all I have to say. Apart from that I think my agreement with the consensus says everything else. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
KahnJohn, do you have some type of connection with that is leading you to crusade to the last man to get it approved as a source? I can see no other basis for your position - it is not benefiting Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No I am not connected to any source and neither biased towards any source. I only acted upon what I saw. Also MarnetteD had also represented another of my statements much earlier in this discussion. I had not noticed about this earlier. The statement was "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not." MarnetteD said that by this statement I (KahnJohn27) was implying that everyone posting on the discussion was dishonest. However it can clearly be seen that that was not what I meant by the statement. I only said that we should'nt be discussing who is honest or not and should instead focus on trying to solve the discussion and it can be easily seen about that from the statement. I won't like to start any blame game again but it was a gross misrepresentation of my statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass uploading of NFC of recently deceased by Slowking4 - possibly a POINTy violation[edit]

User blocked for 48h - although judging by his talkpage we may well be back here again in around 42 Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion has been started a few days ago by B (talk · contribs) on WT:NFC on the issues of non-free images of the recently deceased. The matter is being discussed in a reasonable manner though no clear consensus has come out yet.

It has been noted that Slowking4 (talk · contribs) has started going what appears to be alphabetically through Category:2013 deaths and uploading NFC images of these people, starting shortly after the above discussion thread was started. A number of these have already been tagged as CSD or FFD, in that while deceased, the possibility of finding free media exists (this is related to the thread above). While a strict reading of NFC says that once dead we would never be able to generate free media of such people, there's other avenues of getting non-free.

I've given Slowking4 a warning (and mention about ANI), but I'm wondering if this is POINTy violation, given past issues with Slowking4 and NFC, and some of his responses in the open FFD (eg : the last bunch at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16) that flaunt NFC policy. I am hesistant to outright request a block or removal of uploading priviledges at this time, as I've just now warned him, and in the long run, the actions aren't necessarily wrong - but it is exasperating the current discussion on whether we should wait to use non-free images on the recently deceased. However, at the same time, such actions are just not appropriate for a free content goal. I open the question if anything more needs to be done - pending Slowking4's response and the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I am currently removing images that he has uploaded where the relevant persons were public figures up until their recent deaths - for those people it is very clear that a free image may be available (and that's all NFC requires). Slowking's rationale is that "he couldn't find any free images of them on Google" - which of course due to the nature of Google being slanted towards commercial sites you almost certainly won't. I have left a few alone (for instance, a sportsman who retired 50 years ago). These are either reasonable additions or can be discussed at FFD. This is a direct violation of WP:POINT by Slowking and he needs to be clearly aware that such editing cannot be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This really should be at ANI, I believe, not at AN. I'm (obviously) involved, so I'm not going to take it upon myself to do so, but I believe it should be moved. --B (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a question for Masem — is it possible to prevent uploading without a block? I'm under the impression that all autoconfirmed users are always able to upload images unless they're blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Besides somehow removing the autoconfirmed right, perhaps a ban on uploading might be the only solution. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You could do it as an edit filter. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't think that we can un-autoconfirm someone, and an edit filter seems a bit much for just one editor. Depending on what we find out, I say we either do nothing or we issue a ban on uploading nonfree images, per Salvidrim's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If a decision were to be made for a community ban on uploading non-free images, it could be enforced just like any other topic ban. I'm not even advocating that necessarily - I think that there just needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds and an agreement not to upload fair use images in this manner. Acceptable: you're editing an article, in the course of doing so you observe the lack of a photo, you look around and try to find a free one and can't, you search flickr and don't find anything, so you upload a photo under a claim of fair use. Unacceptable: you patrol through a category of dead people and upload fair use photos in alphabetical order with no attempt whatsoever to obtain a free image. --B (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Any list of "acceptable" uses would get abused. I think an uploading ban is the most reasonable way to address this problem.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yea, and they can still request an image to be uploaded (I think that is still around?); unless, of course, that's abused in turn. :) ·Salvidrim!·  03:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Again I say this without having looked at his editing, but given the evidence presented, I see no reason for an uploading ban — do nothing if it's less severe, and ban from uploading non-free images if it's more severe. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at his edits pertaining to Arts on the Line.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think he's gotten the message for now. If he resumes mass-uploading non-free images we can reconsider the ban. - King of ♠ 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • By "gotten the message", you mean he didn't upload anything while he was sleeping? ;) --B (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing issue[edit]

Slowking4 has resumed uploading non-free images of deceased people. In a clear case of WP:POINT, he's now gone to people deceased a while ago (1970), but it's clear he's still not making any effort to find free images further than the usual Google search. On his talkpage, responses to other editors included

  • "sorry, i ignore policy discussion, and ANI. much ado about nothing. more heat than light. what controversy? anything you try to do here is controversial: it's SOP. why do anything? this is not a bulk upload. this is the upload wizard one at a time. but now that you mention it, i should really write a bot for fair use uploads." and
  • "i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit... i'm going to handle it. deal with it."

I would suggest that this probably has to be dealt with here now - this is clearly WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT given that there is currently a discussion going on at WT:NFC about the issue which Slowking4 refuses to join, and he has previous form for this type of uncollegial behaviour. I am reluctant to block him as I may be perceived as involved, but I don't think nuking all his latest contributions would be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    • This has to stop. He's uploading photos from commercial content providers (violates WP:NFCC#UUI #7. He's uploading photos like File:A. A. Allen.jpeg, which is from a prolific public figure who died in 1970 and public domain photos almost certainly exist. Basically all of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16 and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 17 is his photos and basically all of them are inappropriate. If you're uploading fair use photos at a clip of every few minutes, then you're not making any effort whatsoever to find a free photo. Rather, fair use photos ruin our chances of obtaining a free one. Take File:A. A. Allen.jpeg. Suppose we email the successor to this guy's ministry and ask for a public domain photo or one that they own the copyright to and are willing to license under acceptable terms ... what do you think they will say? "Why should we? You're willing to use a 'fair use' image - why should we do this for you?" --B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Since he's evidently deliberately defying the consensus here that these uploads are inappropriate, in the face of a clear consensus that sanctions against him may be necessary if he continues, I have blocked him for 48 hours to put a temporary stop on these mass uploads. Fut.Perf. 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's another one: File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication. Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published of him in that time? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, he uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. This is the problem with these bulk uploads - he's not putting any effort into doing it right - just google, find, upload, and move on. --B (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Actually, I seems to understand that the definition of a simple photo is very narrow in Austrian law and that most photos get a full life+70 years protection. The Egyptian example that I posted at today's FFD page is better, I think. I think I've shown that free photos of A. A. Allen exist, see FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay - international copyright law is not my thing. But the point is that if you upload a really tiny image from the top of a page and don't scroll down one page view and see that there's an actually usable photo a little further down, you're engaged in way too fast of a process, rather than a serious effort to build an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
              • How do you know there are free photos available? I thought there was a rule against "crystal ball" conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Several points here: (1) WP:BALL refers to content of articles and is completely inapplicable here - I'm not writing an article about the potential for existence of a public domain photo. (2) WP:NFCCE says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." In other words, if you are seeking to retain the content, you must provide evidence that it complies with our fair use policy (ie, it's not replaceable) - it's not my job to prove it is replaceable - only to show that it reasonably might be. (3) As I said, the issue with this photo isn't just copyright - it's that Slowking4 is carelessly uploading these things. This is a tiny unusable photo and, supposing that it is legitimate fair use, there's a better one at the bottom of the page that if he had even taken the time to scroll down he would have seen. Edits to the encyclopedia - fair use photos or otherwise - should be well-thought out, not haphazard.--B (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kamarupi Prakrit and user User:Bhaskarbhagawati[edit]

Please discuss disputes on user talk or article talk pages before running to AN/I. —Rutebega (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bhaskarbhagawati is removing a duely referenced (with page number given) sentence from the article Kamarupi Prakrit. He is insisting on a link to verify the sentence, but there isn't one (not all books are fully on the web). He has removed the sentence twice. diff) and (diff). The reason given, in his edit summary, is "Give page link for claim regarding usage of X sound"; which is strange because this sentence is not at all about phonetics, but the use of certain letters in an old language.

I request that he be prevented from removing sentences arbitrarily----instead he should ask for more evidence, if needed. Such abrasive behavior has lead to edit wars in the past, I am afraid.

Chaipau (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everybody! relist this please[edit]

Looks like someone's trying to raise the dead... m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachchan family--Penssail (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? I'm actually impressed. Please don't clutter up ANI with requests like this. m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Provocative editor needs some action[edit]

IP blocked 2 weeks because s/he obviously is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to fuel invective and is almost certainly a sock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We've got a IP who seems to be solely involved in provocation. If you take a look at the edits to GoodDay's page here and others we get provocative and insulting comments that have nothing to do with improving any article. GoodDay looks likely to be subject to Arbcom restrictions so actively trying to wind him up and