Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Oh dear...[edit]

Resolved

Note: The link is pretty graphic, so I should advise not to click on it if you are at work or might be offended. I don't want to "shock" anyone.

Proxima_Centauri Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism. I'll see what I can find. 28bytes (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. {{Cite arxiv}} was vandalized. I've reverted, protected, and blocked the vandal. Thanks for reporting this. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's behavior[edit]

User:Pmanderson and I are currently participants in an RfC submitted by another user to gauge how the community feels about our romanization of Russian guideline. The guideline in question was proposed by me in 2007 and adopted by a universal consensus between a dozen editors after being open for discussion for over a month. The person who submitted the RfC believes the consensus no longer holds in relation to a specific part of that guideline, namely the one prescribing the way to deal with establishing a conventional name for a place in Russia. While I disagree there is a problem, I readily admit it is a reasonable request which deserves wider community attention.

Here is how the events unfolded:
  • The RfC was opened on June 9, and Pmanderson added his oppose on the same day.
  • I added my support soon after, and commented on Pmanderson's opposition, citing a specific example from Britannica (an acceptable reliable source per WP:NCGN).
  • In a different section, Pmanderson states that he is going to change his vote and will "remove the disputed text". The latter part is the the beginning of the trouble—we have two people opposing something (including Pmanderson), one person supporting it (me), and the discussion which is going on but is nowhere near completion, yet Pmanderson sees nothing wrong with unilaterally deciding the part is question "is plainly not consensus" and removing it himself. For now, however, we can write it off as the "bold" part of the BRD cycle.
  • Pmanderson changes his vote as promised and declares that we should not use Britannica because it uses "pidgin English" (I'm not kidding) and because WP:NCGN needs to be amended anyway.
  • Next he compiles a list of the grievances he has with the entire section of the guideline. Not a part of the original RfC, but OK—all editors have a right to identify potential problems, and adding this to an already ongoing RfC makes sense.
  • His next steps are editing the guideline as promised, classifying the parts he censored out as "strongly disputed" and "dubious". Now, at the time of this edit, the only person who "strongly" disputes these is he himself; most of the parts he took out have no comments from any other editor (even me). This is the first time he does this, so, let's put it into the "B in BRD is for 'bold'" bucket.
  • I reverted the changes when I saw them the next day, pointing out that such sweeping changes should not be made while the discussion is still young. Welcome to the "R in BRD is for 'revert'" part.
  • The next step in BRD is, of course, D (discussion). Not according to Pmanderson. Note the threat in the edit summary.
  • I decide to try restoring the last stable version (the one being discussed) once again. The ANI remark is more of a representation of how flabbergasted I am, not something I intended to do at that time.
  • In response, Pmanderson reverts once again, accusing me of treating the page as my "pet project". In practice, we now have one concerned editors who finds it perfectly OK to demote a standing guideline to an "essay" status merely because he disagrees with it.
  • This is supported by a comment previously made on the talk page, where Pmanderson is "genuinely shocked" with the wording of the whole guideline and declares "most of it" to be "contrary to usage and policy". A certain passage he describes as text which "contends ethnic nationalism" (the final parts of this diff). These are opinions he is entitled to, but not shared by anyone else on the page. My feelings are summed up by the last paragraph in this diff.
  • Not to bore the reviewers with unnecessary details, the situation only goes downhill from here. In the course of few days, Pmanderson:
    • decides that the guideline does not even deserve an "essay" status and marks it as "historic";
    • describes my request to respect previous consensus and to follow procedure as "the demand of our more unscrupulous bullies" and assumes (indirectly) that I cannot be a "reputable editor" (apparently, because no "reputable editor" would ever support something Pmanderson is against). Later he described the request to honor process as "power gaming" and stonewalling.
    • further describes my request to respect procedure as a "bad-faith revert war" and the whole guideline as a "private opinion of a Russian editor" and parts of it as a "nationalist diatribe";
    • produced this opinion of Britannica as a source, with a thinly veiled characterization of me as someone among "non-anglophone nationalists like those which inflict themselves on Wikipedia" who "should be banned". At this point even the person who submitted the RfC asked Pmanderson to chill and to respect the process;
    • started to present my two reverts as "interminable", pretending not to understand the reason behind them (something already explained to Pmanderson by two people), and trying to turn the tables around (either discuss what other people want, or acknowledge that this is your private project), wondering at the same time how can one disagree with his opinion "without being a Russian nationalist";
    • recognized his earlier remark about my two "interminable" reverts as a factual mistake and corrected it to "revert-warring to the unspeakable". By this time, Pmanderson is still the only person who thinks of the guideline as "unspeakable", yet instead of a discussion all we have is a steady flow of attacks in my direction;
    • has been asked by the RfC submitter to stop calling me a "Russian nationalist";
    • called to ban me flat out (as "the author of this" and "POV pusher");
    • decided he had enough of my opposition and made the final recommendation;
    • voiced an interesting opinion on how changes to our guidelines should be done (by observing that it has changed in response to ongoing discussion), which is in direct contradiction with the procedures outlined in WP:HISTORICAL;
    • speculated that the 2007 consensus was due to me gathering "my handful of friends" and described his unilateral decision to change the text and status of the guidelines as "specific proposals"
    • promised to make an edit to prove a point and proceeded with it. Whether the glaring mistake he made in that edit is intentional, is anyone's guess;
  • continued and continued with his insistence to pass his own opinion, unsupported by any other single person, as something "the discussion has established".


And all this in relation to a standing guideline with the discussion ongoing. To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected).

This is how I see things. This (and this) is how Pmanderson sees them. Comments from uninvolved parties would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

TL;DR. Can you summarise please? What specific incident requires administrator intervention here? Have you notified Pmanderson of this? I know his obdurate refusal to maintain his talkpage in a manner which allows people to actually edit it without waiting five minutes for it to load makes it difficult, but you are required. → ROUX  19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, too long indeed. My apologies. The middle part is just a list of diffs to refer to; the first paragraph provides a background, and the last two summarize the problem. If any of my accusations in the last two paragraphs raise an eyebrow, a diff to support them can be found in the mid-portion. The user has been notified. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:26 (UTC)
From my point of view what happened is much simpler:
  • This guideline has sat undiscussed since 2007. User:Mlm42 filed an RfC questioning one part of it; that part has received no support but Ezhiki's. It seems to me to have other quite serious flaws. I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted.
  • At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only, and he would revert any effort to change it or indicate that it was the product of a very dated and local discussion. I so tagged it, hoping that this would inspire actual proposals to meet the complaints of several of us.
  • Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed, and I did a draft, expecting that novel language would provide an opportunity to converge. Instead, he objected on purely procedural grounds, insisting that he alone could formulate proposals, and that they must have a formal vote. I agreed, skeptically, to wait a couple days for these propoeals.
  • Instead of formulating them, he has come here.
In short, this is a classic case of dressing up a content dispute in which Ezhiki is the minority (and a WP:OWN claim) as a conduct dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how discussing my behavior helps your position any. If my behavior needs to be discussed, you are welcome to submit a separate ANI report. Here, let's stick with yours.
To the points:
  • A guideline sitting undiscussed since 2007 is not a problem—it's more of an indication that it works, if anything. However, once a discussion is open, editors are expected to discuss, not, as Pmanderson did, to jump to conclusions and hastily tailor the guideline according to their own vision.
  • The reverts I have made were to ensure that proper procedures are being followed (and there is nothing wrong with "insisting on procedural grounds"). Pmanderson is welcome to make suggestions for amending the guideline, as is anyone else, but it is unacceptable to insist that changes must be made immediately when the RfC was up for discussion for only one day (!) and no other opinions supporting most of Pmanderson's views have been voiced, and that Pmanderson has a right to make changes, while another editor doesn't even have a right to disagree with them.
  • I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted. True, and this conforms to the B and R of the BRD cycle. What Pmanderson omits is that instead of discussion (D, step 3 in BRD), he re-reverted and kept insisting on his version. See the evidence section above for specific diffs.
  • At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only.... It may have become clear to Pmanderson, but no one else shared this sweeping assessment, which Pmanderson continued to pass for "consensus". This is actually a perfect example of Pmanderson's overall attitude—make a statement, and then keep referring to that statement as if it were true forever and is universally supported.
  • Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed. I would appreciate if my agreement were not referred to in such terms.
  • As for the proposals, I discussed the possibility of submitting them with the RfC submitter, and mentioned that I will collect and post them after a few days once other potentially interested parties had a chance to join the discussion. I did not come here instead of making proposals (a suggestion itself showing the lack of AGF), I came here because I saw a larger problem. Besides, the "couple days" to which Pmanderson "skeptically agreed" have not even passed! Another example of unexplainable hastiness exhibited by this editor.
  • The WP:OWN accusation I'm not even going to comment on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 20:50 (UTC)

I started the RfC which kicked all this off. I thought we were starting to make progress towards improving the guideline, but the incivility levels between Ezhiki and Pmanderson have been steadily rising.. in my opinion the incivility has mostly been fueled by Pmanderson, who appears to be upset about the (perceived) inconsistencies between the guideline WP:RUS (maintained mostly by Ezhiki) and the more widely accepted guideline WP:NCGN (maintained mostly by Pmanderson). I'm hopeful this can be sorted out, to the satisfaction of both of them, by making better wording choices in WP:RUS. Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if it could be settled by such means; although WP:RUS much more seriously conflicts with core policies which I rarely edit. As for WP:NCGN, I have undertaken from time to time to summarize a discussion, or react to an instance of actual consensus in Wikipedia space; but I have attempted to do so only when nobody else had done so; certainly I have not prevented others from doing so. I doubt Ezhiki is entitled to say the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • AS for Ezhiki's particular comments: the word "percieved as racist" was anglophone, by an editor who plainly has no notion what it means.
  • Similarly, if If you must, then was not intended as grudging, then I must regret Ezhiki's use of an idiomatic expression outside the sense it customarily bears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    How can the presence of an open RfC on the guideline's talk page not clue you in that "attempts to do so" (i.e., to reach actual consensus) are being made? Why such hastiness? And what "instance of actual consensus" did you have in mind while making this edit (note the impeccable grammar)? Or this edit? Or this edit? There's certainly nothing on the talk page (beyond your own comments, that is), to indicate a "consensus" of any sort to substantiate any of those edits.
    On the ...who plainly has no notion... bit, here we again have Pmanderson making an assumption, formatting it as an obvious truth, and expecting others to take this blatant lack of good faith to heart. A perfect illustration of the problem, that one is. And misspelling a common word in a sentence which accuses another editor of poor grasp of the language? Oh, the irony.Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)
    Sigh. It's not my opinion that the remark in question was not racist; that the opinion of several uninvolved editors, here. But a spurious cry of incivility is almost as useful as spurious cry of racism. 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: Generally, whenever Anderson is involved in a discussion, we're going to have problems with civility. That's reflected in his blocks. It's a shame he hasn't learned from them, but he often succeeds in getting other editors riled up (as he has with me), so perhaps he feels the rewards of attacking rather than cooperating are worth the occasional block. His modus operandi is that whichever POV he supports is 'consensus' (even if he made it up just then), that others defending established consensus is 'ownership', that his wording is 'English' (despite the fact he has yet to master English grammar[1]—that just happens to be the edit I saw before coming here), while any competing wording is 'not English', unprovoked personal attacks, 'I didn't hear that' when evidence contradicts him, etc. Sometimes he may even have a valid point, but it tends to get lost in all the bombast. BTW, I've heard the 'doesn't know what anglophone means' dispute before, with the same complaint that it was covert racism. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, kwami has just summed it all up—I'd agree this is exactly what's going on on the WP:RUS RfC. Looking at pretty much any discussion Mr. Anderson had participated in, if there is a disagreement of any sort, the same pattern of behavior can be expected again and again and again all over. How can one have have six blocks in the past twelve months alone (all for personal attacks, harassment, revert warring, move warring, and a 3RR violation), be a subject of several ANI reports and a conduct RfC, and yet still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance? How many times will incidents like this one have to repeat before sanctions are imposed? Blocks clearly don't work; on two occasions he had been unblocked for "seeing errors in his ways", but the consequent blocks and ANI reports indicate very much otherwise. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong but I won't do it again" just isn't good enough any more. How long will this kind of behavior be allowed to go on?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)
I tend to agree with all of the above, for the most part. The one thing that I have slight trouble with is the "still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance?" comment. Policy pages are pretty unimportant. Myself and probably 90% of all editors simply ignore the text there, while upholding the ideas that they embody. What users such as Pmanderson (and yourself, I'm guessing, based on this comment and the WP:RUS page) fail to realize is that it doesn't really matter what policy pages actually say.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
By and large it doesn't matter; but Wikipedia space is, all too often, used to insist on damage in mainspace. Some sentence which has sat unread for four years since two or three editors "made a consensus" five years ago, becomes "Consensus Policy before which all must tremble" in the hands of some editors. It is preferable to have guidelines which don't say stupid things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That I agree with, but what you say and what you do are clearly two different things. Which tends to create threads such as this. I think that you and I actually hold very similar opinions in this area, but... I'd like to see you spend time elsewhere, because I think that your "battlefield" approach does more harm then good. Where there are issues with people using Wikipedia policy as "the Truth" out there in the mainspace, that should be dealt with by talking to the people involved and convincing them that they're taking the wrong approach. It is preferable that our policy and guidelines don't say "stupid things", but it's not that big of a deal that they sometimes do.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert (yet) on the behavior of this editor, but I do find it difficult to understand what is constructive and substantive about misquotes and twisted comments here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this now?
ANI discussions are not supposed to be laundry lists of unrelated grievances. Serge Woodzing is objecting to edits of Throne of a Thousand Years - the article he wrote, and which used to read like a publisher's blurb (the talk page suggests that this is because he represents the publisher). I'm glad to see it has been cleaned up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson's got a point—this should be closed soon. Here's what we've gathered so far.

As of today, five editors (including me) have voiced an opinion that Pmanderson's behavior is problematic. ANI, of course, is not a place to assess the overall conduct; it is a place to report and act on specific incidents. With that in mind, I would appreciate the following three issues addressed before this thread is archived:

  1. With regards to the ongoing RfC on the romanization of Russian guideline, Pmanderson is in general a very vocal opposer of the current of the guideline, while I am in general a very vocal supporter. With that in mind, I believe neither of us should be trusted with assessing what the standing consensus is or with amending the wording of the guideline; either after the discussion closes or (especially) while it is ongoing. Is it a reasonable request to restore the guideline to its pre-RfC state and amend it only after the RfC closes and specific recommendations become clear? I would trust any uninvolved established user with this task; I am also confident the job can be done by the RfC submitter (User:Mlm42). I do not trust Pmanderson's ability to accomplish this task.
  2. The support for this ANI thread demonstrates that Pmanderson's behavior is often problematic. The RfC on this user's conduct filed about a year ago was closed with the statement that the sheer number of endorsements asserting Pmanderson's behavior "indicate[s] that Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others", and while no sanctions appeared to be called for at that time, it was nevertheless clear that "there is a problem that needs correcting". Since that RfC, Pmanderson piled up six more blocks for all the same reasons, and was a subject of several similar ANI threads. The problems does not seem to have been corrected; it seems to only have gotten worse. With that in mind, would another RFC/U be appropriate to discuss not just this incident, but the overall behavioral pattern since the last RFC/U?
  3. Are any disciplinary measures warranted in relation to this specific incident?

I appreciate time and effort others have put into their comments in this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:58 (UTC)

Hm. I see a number of editors who would like to drag in their grievances, real or invented, against me. ANI is indeed not a place to consider overall conduct, especially from volunteer plaintiffs like these.


Ezhiki's first request is to make a page say many things which are plainly not consensus. The comments on the clause originally at issue in the RFC are overwhelmingly negative; the discussion has produced negative comments by other editors on much of the rest of it, including a suggestion that most of it be replaced by a cross-reference to other more established guidelines, which say different things; even Ezhiki's most recent edit claims he has no objection to this change (which is not yet done). One substantive change I have made (to recommend -y instead of -iy as the Romanization of the Russian ending) is supported by every comment on it, including Ezhiki's.
Changing a guideline to a state which is demonstrably not consensus is oppposed to WP:POLICY. This is taking proceduralism well beyond excess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's one solution: both of you ignore this and go back to Wikipedia_talk:Romanization of Russian and simply talk to each other. If you're both willing to see each other's point of view (without battling over the tags on the front of the document), then I'm confident that a mutually agreeable solution will arise.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. There are three suggestions, two of of them rather drastic, awaiting comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

Hello!

I think this may require administrator's attention. Instead of solve the dispute, below listed user went to the talk page with the lone intention to frighten and intimidate the other user. Written in a completely degrading stlye, even the (possible) living place was revealed and a promise of physical harm/sexual abuse was made. It is a clear harassment in my point of view, with a potential real life outgrowth that should not be understated. – Thehoboclown (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've RevDeleted the abusive comments (there was earlier abuse in Romanian too), and have issued a warning to Cyperuspapyrus - a block should be the next step if that kind of attack is repeated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out.[edit]

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. ignoring the fact that you've spammed this to a bunch of talk pages, I've blocked the editor for 3 days for socking, and have protected a bunch of the articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:KieranKiwiNinja[edit]

KieranKiwiNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

While new-page patrolling earlier, I CSDed Drigers and Boss (Person), as the subjects appeared far from notable. These pages were soon deleted. I then noticed that User:KieranKiwiNinja had apparently created the "Drigers" pages various times before, and it looks like (s)he was blocked for this on 11 June 2011. So I warned the user not to create such pages again, and I was met with a very uncivil comment on my talk page. (Note that I am not, as the comment suggests, an admin.)

Does this user need another block? User has been notified of this report.

Tommyjb (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours because of the personal attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Walmartfan[edit]

User:Walmartfan is making a lot of questionable edits, including one using an image they uploaded to Commons to vandalize Fox News, and edit warring at File:Robloxgame.jpg, where their edit summaries have included "WHO CARES ABOUT WIKIPEDIAS DUMB RULES" and "I WILL KEEP REVERTING IT". I assume something should be done and I'm not sure what; I didn't think reporting them at WP:AIV would be appropriate so I posted this here. –CWenger (^@) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a strict message on their talk page. Should the reverting continue then a block is necessary. Theleftorium (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like User:LessHeard vanU went ahead and blocked him/her! Theleftorium (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
After comparing the warnings on the user talkpage and their edit history, I considered that allowing them to edit was simply a timesink. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and is there any way to get File:Faux-News-poster.png, which they uploaded today, deleted? My apologies as I don't have much experience working with files. –CWenger (^@) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It's already been nominated for speedy deletion at Commons. An admin there will delete it shortly. :) Theleftorium (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like he or she has uploaded some copyright violations to Commons as well. I nominated these for deletion too. Theleftorium (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonicsgate[edit]

Single-purpose accounts have basically turned an article about an obscure documentary into a platform for a local cause. Is it worth it to even try to trim this article back into something reasonable? Chicken Wing (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As a recent example, user:Sunserj comes by and adds a ton of information to the article. The user has three career edits to Wikipedia, and all of them are very elaborate edits to the Sonicsgate article. The user makes no use of edit summaries. I checked some of the sources the editor used, and some of them are a bit questionable. I revert the article back to a point when it didn't look so much like a platform for a local political cause. That prompts user:71.247.216.62, making only his fourth career edit, to revert my edit. Despite never having used edit summaries previously, the IP address editor uses a long edit summary to seemingly impartially berate me for poor editing practices.
I deal with this on this article all the time. Without administrator help, I'll probably just give up on the article because it's not worth my time. Plus, as I get more fatigued with dealing with these problem editors, I'm likely to start getting sloppier correcting the page, which will only give them ammunition. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe an admin will do something about this first; but have you tried asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP? That would keep most of the riff-raff away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, this would likely be the best course of action. Noformation Talk 02:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The last time the Discussion page for the article was used was almost a year ago. How about instead of fronting the problems alone, start a thread on the Discussion page explaining what you perceive the problems to be. That way other editors will have a reference point to work with, and maybe the SPAs will even be prompted to engage in actual dialog.—Biosketch (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestions -- I really do -- and I admit that coming to WP:AIN seems like a drastic step, but call this death from a thousand paper cuts. I've been dealing with the same handful of editors for years on several Seattle-to-OKC related articles. I didn't think I'd be able to justify a semi-protect because of the slow nature of the trouble-making, and I haven't used the discussion page recently because years of dealing with this group of editors has shown it to be a waste of time. The last edits to the article's discussion page a year ago included senseless attacks on my editing history. You can look at the talk pages to articles like Clayton Bennett and Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City to see that for about three years or more I've just been beaten down by a small group of fringe editors. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Right on cue, the IP address displays that it is much more interested in mockery than serious discussion.[2] I really don't mean to seem short-tempered, but I've dealt with these editors for years, some of whom have threatened me and my family with physical violence. I try to assume good-faith, but it becomes obvious fairly quickly when it's just another round of abusive editing. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to try, at least that way you can point at the discussion and essentially say "Use the talk page (constructively) if you want the information kept, otherwise I'll use WP:RFPP, and you'll be locked out of editing, I don't want to do that, but Wikipedia is about discussion, not edit warring...etc, etc." That way if they don't want to discuss the content (not the editors), it'll make it that much easier to semi-protect the page. - SudoGhost 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
(As a note though, it's now on my watchpage, and I'm sure it's on a few more now as well, so that alone should help) - SudoGhost 04:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalked forever[edit]

I continue to be stalked (for years now) by an editor who for all intents and purposes only has one agenda, i.e. to stalk me, and whose contributions are not valuable but border on disruptive as unnecessarily time-consuming. Can anything be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please inform the other person next time (using {{ANI-notice}}). I've informed Pieter Kuiper. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
From WP:HA:Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles...The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Reichsfürst (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not hounding if the other editor is clearing up genuine problems. (I'd be the first to admit that if I see a pattern of problematic changes made by one person, I'll look closely at their other contribs). Is this edit summary accurate? bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the likes of this, I'd suggest it's not unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this is the fourth "I'm being stalked" complaint regarding Pieter Kuiper by SergeWoodzing here on ANI. Rather than accept the outcome of those ANI complaints, Serge just repeats the same complaint over and over. How many times does he need to be told this is not stalking?--Atlan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I note that Pieter has never been blocked. Is this "original synthesis", i.e. synthesizing of names (or "making them up"), a recurring issue where Serge is concerned? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It has happened before. I've had one previous encounter with SW but I can't remember where it was (it came from a 3O, or medcab, or somewhere like that) and the issue was basically one of an anachronistically-translated/interpolated name for some historic Scandinavian subject; the name didn't actually appear in any sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Pieter has intimated that Serge is involved in some way with Throne of a Thousand Years, a book whose main selling point appears to be that it contains newly-coined exonyms for ancient Swedish royal names. And yes, it's definitely a recurring issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So the OP here is essentially spamming? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
More like failing to understand that our policy on the inclusion of neologisms strongly suggests that we shouldn't add exonyms that were recently invented (especially if it is indeed the case that he's associated with the book in question) to random articles. And that Pieter is in fact perfectly right to use Serge's contributions list to monitor such problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Defaced page: Art of Living Foundation[edit]

About an hour ago I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Living_Foundation defaced to have a pornographic background image (shot: http://bayimg.com/GAiBGaaDl, nsfw). A few minutes later it was corrected. It didn't seem to be a normal edit, but instead perhaps css was injected somewhere, somehow. I became curious about how it was done. Anybody? (Sorry if this is the wrong place, I couldn't find any better in this labyrinth...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quite (talkcontribs) 10:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Article contain dozens of templates...if someone messed with one of those, it could cause the issue you discussed. If you still need more info, try WP:VPP (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The template {{Infobox Organization}}, which is used on that page, was vandalized with pornography and quickly reverted, but that was two days ago. If there is some technical issue that is causing Wikipedia to continue to show an outdated version of template (at least occasionally), then it is probably worth having someone with the appropriate technical know-how investigate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience notifications[edit]

Resolved
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:KillerChihuahua recently became a bit more active again and caused some misunderstandings by notifying several editors of WP:ARBPS without any recent reason. I received such a notification for being reminded by QuackGuru of an edit from 3 months ago that played a role in an Arbcom case in which QuackGuru was involved but refused to participate. Naturally, I was a bit pissed, but then took KillerChihuahua's explanation (that he had arrived at the list of people to notify simply by wikistalking QG) at face value.

Apparently I made a strong personal enemy in the process. At least I am not used to openly unconstructive reactions from admins such as this one, and it certainly undermines KillerChihuahua's explanation. This leaves me no choice but to take the underlying problem at Talk:Homeopathy here so that it can be nipped in the bud.

For convenience, this was my request to KillerChihuahua:

As you have been trying to ensure that all editors active in the pseudoscience area are notified of WP:ARBPS, may I suggest that you also notify HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs). My request is prompted by this edit, which either isn't constructive at all, or displays a breathtaking level of ignorance concerning both the topic of the article and the content of the article itself. I have seen a lot of nonsense on that talk page from both pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy POV pushers, but the claim that the bible of homeopaths (5 editions during Hahnemann's lifetime, a sixth edition based on his manuscripts appeared 76 years after his death, countless reeditions and translations) was self-published and cannot be used as a source on homeopathy because "nothing demonstrates that his work was important at all" is the worst so far.
You might also consider notifying JzG who chose to [reward and ignore this behaviour instead of helping to reign it in. But since he himself logged an earlier notification on the same page, I guess it would be technically redundant. Hans Adler 08:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hans Adler 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In case it's not clear: I am not asking for extended drama, but just a quick, non-judgemental, official notification of HandThatFeeds about WP:ARBPS. Hans Adler 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have done this and explicitly noted to HTF that the notification is not intended to be judgmental in any way. In the interests of preventing drama, I am also going to collapse this thread. NW (Talk) 14:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to close it as well when I saw your notification, but got into an edit conflict. Hans Adler 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MarioPool and constant creation of fake television channel articles[edit]

MarioPool (talk · contribs)

Best way to explain what is happening is with the following chronology (some of the items might be out of order since I cannot access deleted content):

  1. Copypastes Boomerang (TV channel), and tweaks it slightly to Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted under A10.
  2. Recreates Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted again under A10.
  3. Copypastes Filmnet into Tv Filmnet. Redirected to original article, and user cautioned: [3].
  4. Copypastes BBC Prime, and tweaks it slightly to Tv Prime. Deleted under A10.
  5. Copypastes BBC World Service Television, and tweaks it slightly to Tv World Service Television. At this point, I realize that he is trying to say it is a different network. Therefore, instead of tagging it for A10, I PROD the article as there are not reliable sources that this other network exists.
  6. Same as above between Al Jazeera Urdu and Tv World in Urdu.
  7. I warn the user to stop doing the above: [4]
  8. After the above warning, does the same between S4C and TV Russia.
  9. Level 4 warning given: [5]
  10. PRODS removed from TV Russia and Tv World in Urdu. Nominated for AfDs and deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv Russia
  11. Continues pattern with Nederland 3 and Channel 3 (Asia).

In all cases, the new articles are 90-99% copypastes of the original articles. The references are changed to websites that do not exist. This user has been warned over and over again. Rather than respond, he continues the pattern. I believe a block is warranted at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone revdel the unused images at File:Nederland3clock1999.png please? It's excessive. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact that whole image needs deletion as it has no fair use rationale and is used purely for decoration. Yoenit (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that all User:Ischa3 has done is upload 100s of non-free logos without fair use rationale for use in galeries and decoration. Going through and tagging them now. Yoenit (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd caution against carpet bombing Ischa's uploads. There might be some worth saving. If there aren't, well then just fire at will. Still, my point is to look first. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe unrelated and more likely, not particularly relevant, but there was a rash of very similar article creations back in 2007, which I remember for the rather idiosyncratic names given to the made-up channels. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Radio Survey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC China were the AFDs for two of the articles. The pattern of article creation is very similar and I remember that the creator of those articles was also editing cartoon articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I second Flowerpotmans suspicions about this. The pattern of creating false articles and adding false TV info to other articles, especially ones about cartoons has occurred before. I think that this has happened since '07 but I have forgotten the usernames that were used. Of course this may be someone new following the old pattern but I am posting this in case anyone else may have a longer memory about this than I do. In any event this editor will need to be watched when the block expires. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Community Ban violation by SuperblySpiffingPerson[edit]

Resolved: Quack, choke. Favonian (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:noclador has identified Special:124.149.66.11 as being SSP, who some will remember recieved a community ban for sockpuppetry. Judging by his edits, including [6], I think we have an enormous quacker here. Could someone check this and then maybe drop the hammer? Thanks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WDTN, Delta, "Decorative" and Deletionism[edit]

It would appear that the best place for this would be WT:NFC, as no administrative action is being requested
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've copied this from an archived section above:

Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
AKMask, could you please provide policy citations: 1) defining "decorative"; 2) stating that readers' comprehension of a topic must be severely limited for an item not to be considered "decorative"; 3) requiring that historic logos must be notable in their own right and may not be used strictly for identification, like the current logo; and 4) requiring sourced citations that concern solely the nature of the logo itself? I'm somewhat of a noob, especially on non-free/fair use issues, and I haven't been able to find anything yet that supports your claims. Could you please direct me to the appropriate policies? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:NFCC. Specifically Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding., Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. and from WP:Logos Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What essay? In any case, there is no requirement for essays to be kept up to date since they are just that, essays. You are free to up date an essay if you desire within the normal bounds of editing and working with others.
I don't really understand your numbers point but there is no hard limit on the number of NFCC images allowed in an article. It depends solely on what is needed which depends on things like the article and subject matter. In some cases, no NFCC images. E.g. many articles on living species or on natural disasters fall in to here. For an article on a copyrighted painting the number would usually be one, i.e. the painting itself. For video games, the number is usually two one of the box, and one in game shot. You can take at Wikipedia:Featured articles to get an idea as these are our best content so will generally have what is considered best. Several examples I saw did appear to have 2. Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy has 3 probably partially since it came out for multiple fairly distinct platforms and for some of those the game was widely criticised. One more example I noticed and specifically chose to check is Donkey Kong (video game). As I expected it has quite a few.
Finally why is this on ANI? What administrative action are you asking for?
Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Again? .. Really? <sigh> — Ched :  ?  22:14, 19 June 2011 (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.

User:Heyitsme24 avoiding blocks[edit]

Heyitsme24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is avoiding blocks. He edited my user page[7] to remove comment about blocked User:Username1234567891011. His username is similar to also blocked User:Heyitsme22 who claims to be Username1234567891011 at [8]. Glrx (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yup, more of the same. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats at Amina Arraf[edit]

Background: A popular Syrian activist blog of a pro-democracy lesbian turned out to be written by a straight, white guy named Tom MacMaster

Now a series of IPs claiming to be Tom MacMaster are threatening legal action if certain sourced claims are not removed. The IPs geolocate to Istanbul, Turkey and east towards Ankara where it was publicly reported MacMaster was taking his vacation. User:Orangemike blocked one of the IPs for making legal threats, but new ones keep coming up and the threat is persistent, as is the claim to be MacMaster. Can I have another eye on this, please? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd request page protection or, preferably, a rangeblock or two, and link all these IPs to WP:NLT for them to read. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The blocks probably shouldn't be indefinite, especially since the user in question is hopping to new IPs... Bobby Tables (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Farsiwan[edit]

I am sorry, but this is just not tolerable. It is full of PA and racist slogans. Only because the user lacks qualification in that field (i.e. he does not even know the basic WP:RS), he is claiming that there is some kind of an "Iranian" and "Shia" conspiracy, of course "headed" by Clifford Edmund Bosworth and David Neil MacKenzie (c. this). The talkpage to Ghurid dynasty has become a playground for users like him. And it prevents (and chases away) actual experts (for example User:Tekisch). Some admin-help is needed. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly issues with this editor, but perhaps owing to lack of familiarity of WP practices and policies. I make no comment regarding whether the representation of Pashtun history is biased either by the references available or the use of same, but it appears to me that this might be considered a content dispute couched in terminology that violates WP:NPA - but I do not believe that concentrating on the apparent slurs against some editors should be a reason for ignoring what may be legitimate concerns over the possible bias against a people. I feel that there is not enough evidence presented here of attempting to resolve any of these issues for there to be admin intervention. I suggest some attempts at dispute resolution and possibly an RfC in regard to (various) editors participation in these areas may be considered.
I would note that I have very recently been involved in suppressing alleged personal information being presented about this editor, so I am aware that there is not only one party to this issue that is apparently not complying with WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I can assure you that there is no bias, even though this is hard to accept/believe for users who are "blinded" by national sentiments, overexaggerated patriotism, or even stubborn ethnocentricism (that's the case with Farsiwan, User:Tofaan, that one IP on the talkpage, etc.). The article Ghurid dynasty is in a very bad shape and needs improvement. But the origins section is well sourced. In fact, it uses the most authoritative sources of oriental studies.What this user does is blindly attacking and insulting these sources (and that actually proves that he cannot be an expert on the issue and that he lacks even the most basic knowledge of the subject) and the authors. There is no such dispute in the academic world. There is not a single reliable and respected scholar who would claim what Farsiwan is claiming. If the most trusted and most authoritative sources of a certain field (in this case Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, even Encyclopaedia Americana and Encyclopaedia Britannica) make a clear statement (i.e. that the Ghurids were NOT Pashtuns) and a few users make contrary statements (i.e. that the Ghurids were Pashtuns, meaning of their own ethnic background, without being able to present a single reliable source), then the users are wrong and their misleading edits need to be reverted - aggressively and without any compromises. This is not just a question of simple Wikipedia rules. It is also about the general agenda of these users who are stubbornly trying to force modern national identities on long-forgotten royal families of the middle ages ... --Lysozym (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming, with a pinch of good faith, that Farsiwan is as new as s/he says then it would be preferable to link him/her to the various policies regarding, WP:RS, WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA, WP:OR etc etc. That being said, I read through the "Ignorants(sic) of Wikipedia and her users" thread started by User:Tofaan. The torrent of racial and personal slanging that ensued did nothing to improve the article. Lysozym, at the start of that thread I can see you tried quite hard to keep the discussion on track about the sources but you allowed yourself to get baited into a fight with Farsiwan leading you into drawing a line in the sand and daring them to cross which they did. User:84.59.186.208 didn't help things with his/her tirade. What we basically have here is a content discussion that has gone out of control. Everyone involved has pretty much violated WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP, except for Kansasbear and Ketabtoon who seem to have given up on trying to keep that discussion on track. A warning for Farsiwan would be appropriate in this case given the lack of warnings on their talk page. Tofaan however is heading for a topic ban. Lysozym, you however should stop treating any rebuttal as some sort of insult that has to be responded to with a beating of the chest and a clashing of the horns. Your tone in the discussion is generally very argumentative and defensive, which even if you didn't start it, definitely doesn't help things, much as Ketabtoon observed. --Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. By the way: 88.69.27.205 (talk · contribs) is flooding Talk:Ghurid Dynasty with profanity and insults. He is no better than his counterparts. --Lysozym (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghurid dynasty[edit]

(moved here as it is an extension of the same ongoing problem --Blackmane (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to report 94.219.108.194 (talk · contribs) and Tofaan (talk · contribs) because of extensive POV-pushing, editwar, and insults. I've tried to clean up the article by sorting the tabs, adding a gallery, etc. - but it was immediately reverted by these two users (who, btw, have totally contrary points of view).

I am tired of this nonsense and I will follow User:Tekisch's advice: I won't edit this article anymore as long as these users (along with Farsiwan (talk · contribs)) continue to flood it with unacademic nonsense, nationalistic POV, ethnocentric and racist insults, etc. There seems to be no interest in improving the article - neither the mentioned users are interested (they just want to force their nationalistic views on it and do not care about actual academic literature) nor the admins (there is not a single admin in the whole of Wikipedia who has knowledge of or interest in this special field of oriental studies). I am out. I do not want to waste my time on a hopeless case. --Lysozym (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the two users, although the IP address is currently blocked. - SudoGhost 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually just blocked Tofaan also, for the round of ridiculous edit warring at Ghurid Dynasty a few hours ago. Should we unblock them so they can comment here? Larry V (talk | email) 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally we copy any comments from the blocked users talkpage over to here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from the user's talkpage)The user:Lysozym is showing himself an angle, as he haven't done anything except cleaning up and report the case. But in fact this user is a devil who is using IP-addresses, different users names and is busy with sockpuppet. By which he hopes and pushing his POV to get his points and make racists and nationalists edits. But however, can someone ask this little angle why is he trying to change an Afghan emperor in the image script to an Afghan artist work? [9] He is saying he has cleaned up, but can some ask him what did he have cleaned up? Does removing historical pictures means clean up? Does removing the tab History of Afghanistan means clean up? or does the changing of translations of historical pictures text which says "an Afghan emperor" and he changed it into "an Afghan artist" means cleaned up, here and here? And if he was really cleaning up the page, than why did he not react on the discussion page here? Can someone ask this little angle why is he whole the time following my edits and why is he each and every time trying to delete my edits on each and every article? and last but not least, can someone ask this little angle what's his relation with this IP-address:94.219.108.194 ? I am 100% sure that this IP-address is one of user:Lysozym, maybe stolen with wireless internet from neighbors!Tofaan (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so now I am also the "devil", huh?! And I am also using IPs and various other sockpuppets, huh?! Great! 99% of Tofaan's edits are like his comments above: WP:PA, wrong and baseless accusations, off-topic, etc. If Tofaan believes that I am using IP socks or some other kind of sockpuppet, he should feel free and ask for a checkuser file. But while we are at it: someone should also check the relation between the accounts Tofaan (talk · contribs) and Farsiwan (talk · contribs) ... it's just a thought ... --Lysozym (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs[edit]

Resolved

Would an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs again? The debate started on 31 May 2011 and remains open. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping, Pang, Pong...
Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Pang? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Pong? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Calaf? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Liu? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Floria Tosca? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Who's that? Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to T. Canens for closing the debate at AN. The main result is:

In closing, I should note that while no editor-specific sanction is imposed on Doncram at this time, given the conclusion reached in this thread concerning the acceptability of these stubs, if Doncram continues to create similarly styled stubs after their block ends, they would be liable to be blocked for disruptive editing.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Persisent problems with Petey Parrot[edit]

Resolved

talk page gone now too. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna say right now that I am half-dead and half-asleep, so other editors like Dougweller and possibly noclador could fill in the details as I need to hit the hay soon (need to get digging at 05:00 GMT+2). There have been some problems with User:Petey Parrot. He has made very POV edits on many articles, particularly ones related to Jews, Israel, US Foreign policy and neo-con stuff. I listed most of the Jew-related stuff in this topic. At the time it was a very exhaustive list. Now that is a problem, but it's not what prompted this ANI posting. The main problem is that Petey has been violating NPA nonchalantly. Now after Doug gave him a Level-4 warning, he stopped and only started posting suggestions for additions to various articles as well as making minor helpful fixes and larger not-so-helpful ones. Recently though, he made a PA and got blocked. His response to this was to post a strange PA on his page about the Likud party. [10] He also made this odd comment [11] and this one after his block was extended [12]. The other editors could explain it better. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page alone, it's a wonder they haven't been indefinitely blocked by now. Larry V (talk | email) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If I hadn't been struggling with an iPad using Wikiedit (which seems to have no tildes) on a bad 3G connection in the middle of a field and then delayed by a dead batter (now replaced by the RAC) I'd have brought this here much earlier today. I interpret " the Rainbow Likudis at the Pentagon" as meaning Jewish homosexuals, in line with his other anti-Semitic comments on talk pages. Why he decided to ignore my Level 4 warning I don't know, but he did and another editor reverted his attack as vandalism. When I saw that I gave him a 24 hour block, raised to 60 hours after his Rainbow Likudis comments. I'm not sure how we should proceed now and would appreciate other comments. It doesn't appear as though he's taking these blocks seriously at all. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I ran into Petey Parrot too - his edits are: unhelpful, disruptive, violations of BLP, homophobic, anti-semitic, and he ignores any advice/warnings. The last straw for me was this edit: [13]. He clearly is not contributing anything of value to wikipedia, but disrupts the work of productive editors. noclador (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Noclander. I have thought for a while now that the user is not here to improve the content from a NPOV position - some undue edits - user page once deleted as an attack page. His early contributions suggest returning user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Petey Parrot apparently has no regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My previous experience with this user was to revert this unsourced edit, so I was a relatively uninvolved admin until I saw his talk page response to Dougweller's block. I extended his block to 60 hours in the hope it might give him pause, but I suspect that no number of limited blocks will cause him to amend his behavior. I'll support an indefinite block. -- Donald Albury 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Petey Parrot problems? Propose permanent prohibition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
"'Ooose a petty boy, then?" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't often say this, ... but this one has "indef" written allll over it. — Ched :  ?  01:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • He was issued a short block, and is squawking about it.[14]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As he is blocked he cannot respond here, so I cam copying his full response to the ANI notification from this talk page: "Go grab sand health hazard.". Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I was trying to figure out what that was supposed to mean, and then it occurred to me that, in keeping with his standard comments, it probably has something to do with a catbox. Hard to figure why the guy is not indef'd already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed this editor's contributions and I've concluded that they're not here to edit constructively and in a collegial fashion and that short blocks would probably serve no purpose; as such, I've been bold and increased their block to indefinite. As usual, anyone may undo, if they think it was inappropriate. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Support indef -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Endorse Salvio's action. -- Donald Albury 11:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, unanimous agreement. Support indef as well. It was amusing at first, but he's done too much damage to articles. Also, I can't stand people who actually think that ad hominem attacks are a serious form of reply in a real conversation. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Support indef -- noclador (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Salvio giuliano has placed an indefinite block on him. Which I support. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support indef., propose Community Ban JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be a bit of an overkill, in my opinion. Petey Parrot has been indeffed, which might be enough to stop disruption. Should he start socking a ban discussion can be iniatiated, but now it's premature, imho. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to go that far unless he starts making sockpuppets. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This comment suggests that this is not the first incarnation of this user. -- Donald Albury 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Nor the last. I think he's back. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

talkpage privileges[edit]

Petey Parrot really, really, really wants his talkpage privileges to be revoked. noclador (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 DoneChed :  ?  03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That comment directed at me was just strange.... Good privilege removal imho. It's not just PAs and incivility, it's complete nonsense (I can understand the Antisemitism and the homophobia (even though I am not gay myself, homophobia actually does annoy me, whereas I laugh at anti-Semitism), but all the colon-related comments are just weird). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

block evasion[edit]

quack-quack: User:Petey Petenov obvious block evasion and already up to the same ant-semitic and homophobic shit. noclador (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering this socking (also User:Petey Peteler, who has also been banned) I'm inclined to support JoeSperrazza's motion for a community ban. This guy is offensive, disruptive, and nothing but trouble. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Support community ban. -- Donald Albury 10:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Support if we need one. I took Petenov to SPI earlier (would have blocked but it's nice to make it clear to someone that nobody wants them). Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Support community ban, noclador (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lecen–DrKiernan[edit]

Resolved: Lecen and DrKiernan agree only to talk about each other or the other's opinions on pages to which both have contributed.

I wish to suggest a ban on either of the two editors above mentioning the other or the other's opinions on user talk pages.

Despite my request to desist misrepresenting my opinions,[15][16][17] Lecen has continued to do so.[18][19][20]

I now fear that a restriction on mentioning the other editor outside of article or wikipedia space is now the only sensible way forward to prevent further misrepresentation and discord. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the backstory here? Interaction bans usually require rather more than one person not wanting to be mentioned by the other. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What he said, plus can you please describe how you are being misrepresented? → ROUX  12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want an interaction ban. What I want is a restriction on mentioning the other editor or their opinions on a third-party's user pages. I have tried to engage him repeatedly in perfectly clear language but he persists in spreading untrue stories about me. For example, I made it perfectly plain that I support the inclusion of alternative names in the lead,[21][22] but he runs off to his friends and says I want to remove them from all articles.[23] It happens so frequently and so obviously, that I cannot see how it can be a simple misunderstanding. I want it stopped. DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not saying it justifies an interaction ban. But [24] "For some reason that I'm not aware, he is against alternative forms of names in any article about royals which I work on, but not on any other. Is that a huge coincidence" seems a little unfair when the user has stated that their desire is the removal of anglicised names when they (in their opinion) the anglicised version is rarely used in RSS but the non-anglicised version is. Unless there is some evidence DrKiernan is targetting Lecen's articles rather then trying to remove the names they feel don't appear in RSS.
However it looks like Lecen has tried to improve by removing references to DrKiernan even if that's who he/she is referring to. From what I can tell, they haven't even linked to the dispute in their latest questions. I don't know if we should stop someone asking opinions of other editors even if they're presenting an inaccurate summation of a users view when they didn't link to the user or otherwise provide info that is going to directly lead to who they are referring to.
However the best thing may be for Lecen to just remove all references to any user. E.g. "What do you think of the removal of translation of royals' names from the paratheses in the lead. This means that there would be no Anglicized form of the name of Wilhelm II, German Emperor in the lead as there is now."
P.S. This doesn't of course mean I'm agreeing with DrKiernan's POV, simply that I feel people need to be very careful if they attempt to summarise someone else's POV and therefore should avoid doing it unless really necessary.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It appears that DrKiernan forgot to notify Lecen of this thread: I've done that now. Am I right in saying that the problem here is not so much misrepresentation as canvassing? It seems as though the problem is that Lecen is dropping targetted "please help me out in this discussion" comments on sympathetic editors rather than the specific language used 9although non-neutral language is indeed a hallmark of canvassing). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DrKiernan did notify him here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't Nil Einne's quote remind you of "What do you think of the Republican proposal to slash Medicare? This means there would be no protections for seniors." I agree canvassing is a concern here. By way of disclosure, I've worked with Dr Kiernan for several years and he sponsored my RFA. But I wish that two distinguished FA writers would find some way to get along ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have warned Lecen about WP:CANVASS (which he disagrees with on my talkpage). I think DrKiernan's major complaint is that Lecen is misrepresenting things that he says when subject canvassing is taking place ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah canvassing is a concern. I meant to say "If there isn't any canvassing I don't know if we should stop...." or something of that sort. 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Edit:Although one of the confusing things to me is what Lecen is trying to do anyway. An RFC was suggested by someone else but unless I missed it, hasn't started yet so I'm not sure what they hope to do by asking various people. At least in the later cases, they don't seem to be linking to any dispute but just giving a random example. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I was aware of this topic since the beginning. Dr Kiernan did warn me about it. I opted to ignore it since I knew beforehand its outcome. It was one sided before, it will be one sided now.
For the editors who aren't aware of what's going on, the problem is "simple" (no, it's not, it has a lot more, but I won't mention any of it): whether the name of a royal should be followed by a translation of his/her name in parantheses. That's the case in every single article on Western royals: from Nicholas II of Russia to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Having said that, I'll explain what I did (although I hardly believe it will matter). Since the discussion was going nowhere in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies' article, I went to Wilhelm II, German Emperor and invited three editors to share their thoughts. Why this article? Because the name of the subject is in German. not English, as Teresa Cristina is in Portuguese, not English. Both have the anglicized forms of their names in parentheses, at the very beginning of the lead. I don't know any of the three editors (LightSpectra, Rjensen and Berean Hunter) to whom I sent invitations.
I also invited Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy, whom I do know, although we are not friends and we never worked together on any article before (unlike Astynax, for example). I called him because he is a well know editor who always contributed to articles on royals.
If you regard that as canvass, that I was trying to "cheat" on the debate. Fine. I believe it's useless to argue against. Chris Cunningham said that "seems as though the problem is that Lecen is dropping targetted 'please help me out in this discussion' comments on sympathetic editors". Well, it would be good if you had asked or waited for my opinion before judging me.
Nonetheless, that's not the point. DrKiernan will not rest until he gets me banned or something similar. I'm tired of having him looking at my contributions log checking with whom I talk and what I do. --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You and Dr Kiernan both work with articles about royalty. That is not a big pond.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kind of weird to see DrKiernan's friends in here clearly against me. As I said: "one sided". Feels like I'm facing a firing squad. Who's next? --Lecen (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've disclosed my interest, which I did not have to do. Having done so, I can freely engage in discussion, knowing that other editors will give my disclosed COI appropriate weight. Were I less honest, I would not have bothered, and just relied on your spamming half of FAC as evidence that you just don't "get" the canvassing restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You say "discussion was going nowhere in Teresa Cristina" but we already have 10 points of agreement; see Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Names. I see no reason to abandon that discussion now. That is why I do not want an interaction ban, as agreement through interaction is still possible. I want you to understand that your opinion of me and my views is misplaced. DrKiernan (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC)It seems to me part of your problem is "the problem is "simple" (no, it's not, it has a lot more, but I won't mention any of it): whether the name of a royal should be followed by a translation of his/her name in parantheses". DrKiernan has said more then once that they are nor arguing for the complete removal of any 'translations' but a removal when those translations are barely used in RS. As long as you continue to present this a dichotomy between complete removal and complete inclusion the debate is going no where. And I can see why people are sympathetic to DrKiernan regardless of whether they agree with his/her POV and whether he/she has even presented a compelling argument for how the inclusion/exclusion will be determined.
This is further demonstrated by your trying to move the discussion to 'Wilhelm II, German Emperor'. Has DrKiernan even suggested the 'translation' should be remove there? Or is Wilhelm II one example where the 'translation' is widely used in RS and even DrKiernan agrees so there is no suggestion of it being remove by anyone?
Finally, as I said above, while it's good you've stopping naming DrKiernan, since it's obvious to anyone familiar with the dispute who you're referring to it would be better if stop referring to any editor at all when you have the potential to present a misleading view of what they want. If you would agree to that I hope we can end that part of the discussion so the only issue of relevence to ANI would be the canvassing.
BTW while I can't speak for other editors, I've never interacted with DrKiernan or you before now AFAIK.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. I only invited to review my newly FAC nominated article reliable editors who reviewed my articles before. SandyGeorgia told me once that FAC's nominators were supposed to find their own reviewers. I didn't sent invitations randomly. I really don't like this feeling of being followed wherever I go. Why keep looking at my contribution log? --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Lord, I do not look at your contributions log. I'm an administrator; this is a noticeboard for administrators. I've had this watchlisted from the time my RFA passed in December 2008. Lecen, everything is not always about you. I'm just saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Lecen, would you agree to a voluntary restriction on mentioning the other editor or their opinions at pages which the other one has not visited? DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Declared good-hand-bad-hand account[edit]

North8000 (talk · contribs) appears to be operating a good-hand-bad-hand scheme with TheParasite (talk · contribs). The latter's userpage states, "Most of the time I am North8000 who tries to contribute and be productive. But I have a split personality [...] When this personality comes out, I just want to pick at, delete, criticize and tag other people's work rather than doing anything useful [...] I am so expert at quoting and misusing Wikipedia policies [...] If you anger me I will go after you and win."

While this sort of thing could potentially be humourous, it doesn't seem to be so in this case. A recent example of pointless disruption took place here: [25] [26] – which I only realised was a 'joke' by accidentally clicking on the link to one of the userpages.

The editor has declined my request that they voluntarily stop this disruptive editing so I am reluctantly bringing this here. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, one of the accounts should be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. If TreasuryTag hadn't stumbled upon the person's userpage and brought it to the attention of the disucssion's participants, it would have appeared (and did appear to me) that they were two seperate accounts joining in a discussion. This clearly violates WP:ILLEGIT. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Another instance of using both accounts in the same discussion without indicating they are the same person: [27] and [28]. This and the above incident are the only times the second account has edited outside of its own userspace. The only purpose of this account seems to be to add support for the other account's comments. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true./ I will prepare a thorough answer in the next few minutes. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
TheParasite has only had 2 brief edits (outside it's talk page) in it's history, and both of them essentially a brief disagreement with me, and both obviously there only to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me. I prominently declared this in both directions. So it is not disruptive per that definition, nor agreeing with me. So, all of the above accusations of going against policy or guidelines are not correct.
But I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that. I'm leaving now for about 6 hours and won't be able to participate or do anything further until then.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to stop with the split-personality. It's a pity that you couldn't have so agreed about half an hour ago when I asked you to on your talkpage, though. Also, if the only purpose of the account was "to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops..." etc. then that is obviously disruptive because it serves no valid purpose related to building an encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation[29] GB fan (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident where I provided a profuse and detailed explanation. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:GHBH and it is silent on the issue of whether it is only talking about "undeclared" bad hand accounts (which would make it a "sock puppet") or both "declared" and "undeclared" bad hand accounts. However, I would ask North8000 to say how he thinks that creating a "mirror universe doppelganger account" contributes to building the encyclopedia. I would also ask him to review WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the dangers of picking an alternate account with a vastly different name from your main one; at least I had the sense to make the signature of mine really obvious. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
In my case I would think that Ron Ritzsock is obvious enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, although it also isn't a bad-hand account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Are there any other alternate accounts that have been used by this editor?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
A WP:SPI may be in order. Phearson (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
fish CheckUser is not for fishing --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sure that there it was not the intention of North8000 to be deceitful, and I for one accept his explanation that the secondary account was duly disclosed on its userpage. However, to a participant in the village pump discussion in question, it would not be immediately apparent that the sock is the same editor as North. It would be preferable if he stopped editing from the secondary account, or at least did not use it at all to participate in community or content discussion. I do not agree that an SPI is warranted here, because this seems more like a misguided than a deceitful use of a secondary account; but I do think that administrative action would be necessary if North does not voluntarily abstain from using the account. AGK [] 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Your assessment of my intentions is very accurate. Recapping my earlier note, I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that.
I think that persons throwing around inuendos, making clearly erroneous accusations without/ before carefully reading the guideline, mis-characterizing it as a bad hand account, and leaving out key information is the worst thing happening here. When I accidentally edited as both North9000 and Goober9000, (ONCE, and about 8 months ago) I immediately took ownership (I think I also then double signed the edit) and explained the situation right there by the edits. I also left a detailed explanation of the situation and how the error occurred at the top of the Goober9000 page for 5 months after that, (check the history) and after that left a briefer note which remains there. And then 8 months later somebody left all of that out and just wrote "Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation".
Further, the message at TheParasite is to call attention to a very serious problem in Wikipedia, and I feel that the manner chosen to do it at the TheParasite page is an effective if unusual way to do it. There are very destructive people like the TheParasite roaming Wikipedia. The two times that TheParasite has ever edited outside of their talk page is when this problem was germane to the discussion. North9000 was arguing for things which would help solve the problem, and then TheParasite briefly chimed in opposing me, in essence saying that they wanted to keep the status quo. And as if the name alone "TheParasite" wasn't a dead giveaway. With an inexplicable and unexplained goofy comment like TheParasite made, and a name like that I think it was very clear to most that I obviously wanted people to go to TheParasite's page, but somehow that also got "missed" and left out in the above.
And finally, the "shouting from the rooftops" was explicitly "where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me"; referring to how prominently I indicated on both user pages that both accounts are me. Then TT chopped off the operative "that it's me", then "forgot" this and made the comment that the shouting from the rooftops was "disruptive". Disclosure of the alternate account was certainly not disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
But having an alternate account designed to imitate the behaviour of a destructive editor in order to make a point seems to be a classic WP:POINT violation, so I for one welcome your pledge to stop. ╟─TreasuryTagOdelsting─╢ 08:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Wp:point says to not do disruptive behavior to make a point, and then goes on to give examples, all of them involving editing articles to illustrate the damage that can be done by the issue in question. It does not say that "reverse psychology" is disruptive behavior, it is pointing out not to do disruptive behavior in reverse psychology type situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The spirit of the guideline plainly covers the creation of an alternative account simply to act like an asshole. Whether or not it is specifically mentioned on the list of examples is irrelevant. Assuming that you understand that, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop with the personal attacks, which, unlike my conduct, IS a violation. And my point was not that it wasn't listed in the examples, my point was that the behavior has to be disruptive on it's own right in order to forbidden by wp:point, and the examples give a general idea of the nature and severity of behavior which would be considered that, and mine (two brief comments on TALK pages) was not even in the ballpark on either of those metrics, much less both of them. As indicated, I wanted to retire that alternate account anyway and have done so. If there are no further incorrect accusations or insinuations of mis-behavior, then we're done here. If there are, please be specific and lets review it here. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that you may be the one in the wrong here? Our "incorrect" accusations that you created an alternate account solely in order to act like a "destructive editor" (your words) clearly have to conclude that your actions were disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTagRegional Counting Officer─╢ 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You must understand and I take behaving properly and nicely very seriously. And that includes reading the behavior-related rules precisely and complying with them. I see nothing anywhere that defines the types of things that I did as disruptive. Perhaps you feel it is disruptive even without that. Perhaps we could agree to disagree on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Come on. Wikipedia has a relatively high percentage of users with difficulties judging social interactions and getting jokes. I believe we have a great deal of tolerance here for them, but making innocuous behaviour illegal just to make it easier for such users is not a good idea. Just like we are not removing all the markup in articles to make it easier for screenreader users. Hans Adler 17:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Whole new topic (if we want to get into it) but I can provide extensive evidence bearing out anything that I have ever said about this editor. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
North8000, Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? -- Atama 18:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Condensing the full disclosures and declarations on my account pages and above, North8000 is my main account, Goober9000 (who has only made one edit outside its user space, by accident, fully explained, and triply taken ownership of) I keep for logging in at insecure locations, and TheParasite (who has only made two edits outside of it's user space) I'd guess you'd call humerous; I was planning to retire it to simplify things and now have done so. So, all of my alternate accounts put together have made 3 brief edits outside of their user pages, total words for those edits = about 1/100th of the above discussion, and now they are down to just Goober9000. . North8000 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(This is just a copy-paste of the question asked by Atama (talk · contribs) but since you didn't answer it, I assume you didn't see it.) Wikipedia has a limited number of uses where alternate accounts are allowed. What among those criteria justifies all of your alternate accounts? In addition, do you understand that editing project space with an undisclosed alternate account is in violation of our sockpuppet policy? ╟─TreasuryTagLord Speaker─╢ 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He replied that he considered TheParasite a humor account, and used Goober9000 for public logins; both of those are listed as acceptable uses. Regardless, he's said he intends to retire the TheParasite account, so assuming he does, are there any outstanding issues to consider? 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I fully answered the question, I don't know why it was repeated. Also as indicated above a couple times, I already retired TheParasite. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm satisfied, though the "humor" usage is a dodgy one; I know that we allow some accounts for humor but it's on a case-by-case basis, for example using a sockpuppet to insert humorous misinformation to BLP articles would count as "humor" but I'd block someone for that as soon as I saw it. Either way, though, the disruption doesn't seem to have been that extreme and TheParasite is being retired so that's not a concern for me. Goober9000 is clearly linked to North8000 and has a legitimate use so that's not a concern either. If those are the only alternate accounts then I think North8000 isn't doing anything in violation of WP:SOCK. -- Atama 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That's it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename through protection[edit]

For the June 4–16 RfC closed by Jehochman, see Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content.

I recently renamed Campaign for "santorum" neologism shortly after Jehochman (talk · contribs) had renamed it to Santorum Google problem and move-protected it as part of closing a RFC on the article. He stated that he considered it an interim move, and that discussion on a final title should continue. I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title. I reviewed the then-day-old discussion on the renaming issue, found that there was one title that appeared to me to have significantly more support than the other proposals, moved the article to the title above, and posted to the talk page indicating that my rename was also an interim title, and that discussion should continue. Since then, I have been urged to self-revert, but I have refused, feeling that this would be acting against consensus.

I have no interest in criticizing other people's actions at this point. What I am asking for is an uninvolved admin to review the discussion and see if there is enough support for another interim move, either back to Jehochman's original rename or onward to another title, and if so, to perform that move. I would also like people to stop pestering me to self-revert, and attempt to influence consensus for their preferred title at the appropriate venues, which do not include my talkpage.

Thank you. I haven't notified anybody because I'm asking for an evaluation of the discussion, not any editor's actions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I do think it was partly premature to rename it (since there wasn't a clear idea what to name it to), and also I think it was premature to again rename it. I think the one thing all the editors can agree on with that article is that there is almost no agreement on what the name should be. The status quo gets a big nod, but the BLP issues were getting a big round of support also. Any name with Google in it is problematic, especially with BLP or defamation associated with it. The problem is that any super accurate title becomes a little ungainly. "Dan Savage Campaign to Start a Crude or Sexual Neologism about Senator Rick Santorum" is just too long. So I think the best you can do right now is get close until someone very crafty comes up with a better title, or just give it an ungainly title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see consensus to revert Sarek's move through protection; an act which spawned objections from a large number of editors, even from those who supported the actual name that Sarek chose: here and here. There was no consensus for Sareks move, it was a unilateral move apparently based on Sarek's own opinion - there was no time given for a true consensus to emerge. This move merely undermines an RFC closure, a fellow admin, page move protection, and the progress of the discussion. I ask that an uninvolved admin reverse Sarek's move back to what the RFC closer Jehochman did. Dreadstar 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Why would we "forget" page-move protection when I pointed it out in my original post?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Jehochman's Santorum Google problem was a good stop-gap solution. Renaming the article so soon after his RfC closure, through move protection, was not helpful in my view. I'd rather we go back to his title. Sorry, I am sure you did it with the best intentions, but what the article needed at that point was a period of calm reflection. (Personally, when Jehochman closed the RfC, I breathed a sigh of relief and thought I could spend a day or two not thinking about the article. Next thing I knew the name had changed again.) --JN466 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x2 There was never going to be consensus on the name of this page, the "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" about sums it up, the word is a neologism ("is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language"), SarekOfVulcan made the call, a very tricky one, lets WP:AGF on behalf of all administrators who make such calls and move on to the actual article it's self. Personally, I see the article as a continuation of that campaign and would support the whole scale culling of the article but there are enough editors invested in this to drown out my voice. Mtking (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we please avoid discussing what the name of the article should be here? I was asking for someone to go _there_ and look, not for people to fork the discussion into yet another venue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Why not, do you Own that name? Worse than I originally thought... :) Dreadstar 05:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
        • What part of "Uninvolved admin please review the discussion I haven't participated in" equals "I own this article"? Please, enlighten me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Be nice, both of you. I think Sarek was simply saying that he'd prefer this discussion take place at the article, where it can have a stronger impact. -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe I was not making my point, let me put it another way, ask 5 administrators and you are likely to get 4.5 different answers on this one, you made the call and whoever made the call at least 20% of editors on the page would be unhappy with it. Mtking (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sarek, just self-revert already and let another admin handle the next page move if and when there's clear consensus for one. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Comment. Sarek himself summed up the problem in his post above: "I felt that this was a bad title choice ..." Therefore he moved it. He had no right to edit through the protection Jehochman added just because he personally felt the new title was a bad choice. The RfC had been open for nearly 14 days. Jehochman's closure was a compromise and should have been respected, at least in the short term. If Sarek wanted to move it, he should have started a formal requested-move discussion, with notification and seven days for comments, so that people had a chance to express their opinion. As things stand, he edited through protection to impose his own preference, and he ought to self-revert. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note the point in the sentence where Slim stopped selectively quoting me above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The quote I selected sums up the problem. You wrote: "I felt that this was a bad title choice, and when I reviewed the discussion on the talkpage, it appeared to me that there was indeed a consensus against this title." But there was also discussion on the page that indicated people were supportive of Jehochman's title as a compromise. You had your own opinion and therefore you noticed only the posts that confirmed your opinion.

    What is required in a case like this is handling by admins who have no opinion, or no strong one. We had that in Jehochman, so there was no need for a second admin to step in. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Sarek should self-revert to avoid any further drama and allow proper discussion. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that there was really no consensus for the first rename either -- the one to "Santorum's Google Problem". Plus it potentially makes it appear that Google is personally intentionally inflicting damage on Santorum, which may or may not be true, but is not supported by any Reliable Sources we have. The Sarek title is still not perfect but its less bad than the other. If anything related to reverts should happen, it should be all the way back to the status quo title. Otherwise leave it at Sarek's until people can actually come up with a new title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There was broad consensus on both sides of the merge debate that the old title reflected neither the article content, nor the weight of the sources, nor BLP policy. Jehochman read that correctly. As for your concern about Google, terms like "Google problem" or "Google bomb" are what this sort of thing is called; these terms don't imply any culpability on the part of Google, they just indicate that someone has manipulated their search results. --JN466 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This is fiction. The RfC proposed, in effect, to delete the article (via merging without preservation of a redirect). That proposal failed. Jehochman renamed the article (an "interim" solution) despite the fact that this was not part of the RfC. That name has no more support than Sarek's -- or, rather, demonstrably less support than Sarek's. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not correct. Renaming was indeed part of the RfC. See the link at the top of this section. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Despite there being an RfC, there were other discussions on the page at the same time for other ideas because the RfC was simply too limited. I agree with Nomoskedasticity that neither rename really has consensus, although I like that it isn't named what it was, if a non-Admin had done this, it wouldn't have been allowed to stay. THAT SAID... I think the new name will ultimately prove to be less of a headache than the status quo name was. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on the talk page, during and after the RfC, has for days now focused on what to rename the article to, not whether to rename it from the original title it had when the RfC started. Editors from both sides of the merge debate have been putting a lot of good-faith effort into finding a more appropriate name, for more than a week. Macwhiz did an analysis towards the end of the RfC showing that the point there was most underlying agreement about was a rename. --