Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal attacks, possible off-wiki dispute[edit]

Users warned. Discussion continuing on my talk page, but no admin action required at this time. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somehow I stumbled on a dispute between these two individuals on articles related to Los Angeles-area public transportation, particularly Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). On 12 July I gave both users a level 4im warning ([1] [2]) as they were making personal attacks on each other's talk pages. In particular, Dias created an attack page on Random's main user page (since deleted so I don't have a diff), and Random has taken to edit summaries ([3] [4] [5]). Dias even placed this comment on my talk page in response to the warning. I haven't had the time to wikistalk these two in the weeks since, but now that I've looked through their contribution histories I see that both have taken to edit summaries to continue their personal attacks ([6] [7] [8] [9]) and some of these edit summaries tell me that these two are continuing an off-wiki dispute ([10] [11]). This is a combination of edit warring, ownership of articles, and personal attacks, and I'd like some admins to take a look to see if blocking is warranted. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well. I consider that an EW warning might be the way, and if they continue with it, maybe a severe sanction would be on the way. I have read the diffs and they don't are substantial enough to be considered personal attacks, IMO. In relation to the ownership of articles, this may also apply, but not totally sure, as EW is still the main issue and none of them have created the article nor being the major contributor. — ΛΧΣ21 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, they seem to have stopped editing on August 11, and as a result, the edit warring issue may be over. Unless the users start edit warring again, i'm afraid it may not still be any problem. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Dias stopped editing on August 11, but Random is still active as of today. Kurtis (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I hope neither of the parties take offence at my comments here, but am I the only one who thinks it's a very slight possibility that these two accounts are operated by the same person staging a sock battle on the article? They just seem to have a lot of vitriol directed at each other, and I can't for the life of me figure out what would provoke such bad blood between two people with virtually no interaction outside of Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. DiasMi012 has been editing since April 2011, whereas Random5555 has been here for just over a month; yet many of his edits are antagonistic towards Dias.[12][13] Likewise, Dias has responded with somewhat snarky rebuttals, clearly out of some degree of frustration with Random. I think the best solution in this instance, assuming they are completely different editors (which I still consider likely, despite my sentiments above), is to strongly suggest that these two cease interacting with each other. It's pretty clear that nothing good will come of them having any further direct contact, given how they can't work out their differences in a reasonable manner. I also feel as if Random5555 would be best advised to edit elsewhere, as he obviously has very little control over his emotions while editing the article in question. If he does not prove to be constructive anywhere else, then I actually recommend a block — thus far, he doesn't appear to be able to collaborate effectively with other editors. In DiasMi012's case, I think a stern warning to avoid edit warring and to keep his cool, even when the editing gets tough, will do. If problems persist with him, it might also be best for Dias not to edit Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. Just my $0.02. Kurtis (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and give some more warnings, but Random has been warned about civility already, and I think that this taking to edit summaries to make their jabs at each other is just a backhanded way of evading direct contact (e.g., on a talk page). —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:10, 14 August 2012 (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.

91.74.118.88[edit]

IP blocked Noom talk stalk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user 91.74.118.88 has been warned several times regarding using Wikipedia as a soapbox, in response to posting multiple complaints on the Flydubai page. They have also been blanking their own talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp71 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IP address blocked following report to WP:AIV Noom talk stalk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (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.

132.3.29.68[edit]

IP user warned, reporting party referred to AIV. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user 132.3.29.68 has been warned multiple times from the talk page about vandalism and other things. This IP recently edited Soledad O'Brien twice, both times were vandalism [14]. Before that, editing Brokeback Mountain, here, and then Detroit Pistons, here. I am aware this is a shared IP address but at least we can disable anonymous editing? Toasty (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I don't see enough recent vandalism to justify a block; additionally, most of the warnings on the talk page are stale (>1 month old). I'll issue another warning; if vandalism continues please report this IP at WP:AIV. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IP User:64.175.39.242 Legal threat on talk page of User:MarnetteD[edit]

If you're trolling, you can hardly object to being called a troll. IP blocked for a week. Article semi-protected for 2 weeks. Black Kite (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The heading says it all. After escalating trolling and personal attacks on MarnetteD's talk page, the IP user has escalated to a legal threat Time to bit this IP goodbye with prejudice. --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And now, the same IP has left a threat on my talk page as well. I haven't even had time to warn him/her yet! --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I undid an edit they had made as the earlier USER had made a reasonable edit., changing one word that made more sense. As soon as I had done that, I was called an "IP Hopping Troll" and something about socks was posted to me. A Troll is a vulgar insult and one that I don't see why I have to accept without complaint. Your comments above are highly inflammatory and unnecessary. If the insults to me are not reversed or removed, I see no reason why I should not take legal action to remove this defammation. If you see that as a threat, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what I edited:

(cur | prev) 06:43, 15 August 2012‎ 64.175.39.242 (talk)‎ . . (91,320 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Undid revision 507479719 by MarnetteD (talk) Reviewing the edit, their is nothing disruptive i can see. It is a language improvement. It appears MarnetteD is simply looking to escalate problems.) (undo)

I had seen that MarnetteD and another USER under an IP address were arguing. I looked at the edit and it seemed perfectly reasonable, so I undid it with the above comment. Since then MarnetteD has continually abused me by calling me a 'troll' and accused me of using 'socks' which I don't even understand. Now the same user is saying that the problem is my attitude and insults to other editors. The above edit is the only one I made. This is intolerable. 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

USER Drmargil has now joined in the name calling and abuse. Who is policing these editors and allowing them to abuse in this way? 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To anyone who takes a look at this you will need to take a look at the edit history of this page [15] A series of IPs 216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs), 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs), 85.237.212.195 (talk · contribs) and 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) - none of whom have an extensive edit history - has been using edits - some innocuous others not so much - to leave edit summaries attacking other editors, especially Redrose64. While most of the IPs are from California at least one has been from England so I fear this is a sock/meat puppet situation. They most likely tie back to the blocked user TVArchivistUK (talk · contribs) who engaged in much socking and personal attacks before being blocked last May. The language used currently is much the same as the blocked editor indulged in. Redrose64 has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with this but I feel that the attacks should stop and either the various IPs should be given some time off or any pages that they edit to continue their attacks should be semiprotected. It is late here so I will probably not be able to respond for several hours. My apologies to anyone who needs my input until then MarnetteD | Talk 07:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I think there's a little more to it than that, 64.175.38.242. Since July 12, you've also edited as IP User:216.31.246.114 here, here , User:85.237.212.218 here and here; and User:64.175.39.242 here and here in the first of a string of disruptive edits, always informing editors they cannot make edits not approved by User:Redrose64 (who appears to be an uninvolved party (see this edit). You seem to feel one editor owns the page, and that it's your role to defend that ownership to the point of making legal threats to both MarnetteD and me, while being unresponsive to warnings on your talk page. This is block worthy behavior that will not be tolerated. --Drmargi (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you. I have taken steps to resolve this now. Any editor that does not use an ID is assumed to be the same. I know nothing about technology, so I don't know where your evidence is coming from. But I hope the steps I have taken will be sufficient. To personally insult someone as a 'troll' is defammation. What will you be calling people next on this site? Witches? Crones? Worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.242 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While there are several IP edits to check to get the whole picture of what is going on the most important one regarding 64.175.39.242 (talk · contribs) is this [16] where, with only their third edit, they mention Redrose64 by name. Hardly the edit of someone "brand new" to Wikipedia to to editing the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases article. It reads like a "quack" to me MarnetteD | Talk 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Legal threats aside, two IP's who have never edited before, on in Alameda and one in Emeryville (about 10 miles apart) suddenly making the same edits defending the "owner" of a page, both in the manner of a banned editor leaves us in the land of "pull the other one; it has bells on it." --Drmargi (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Although accusations of sockpuppetry without filing a formal WP:SPI report are sometimes slightly uncivil, and the word WP:TROLL can also be on the uncivil side, defamation only exists if it directed against a recognizable individual, which does not exist here. Indeed, calling someone an internet troll would never qualify for that. Regardless, the policy on No Legal Threats is clear: you must be indefinitely blocked while the "threat" (as useless as it is in this case) exists. dangerouspanda 08:00, 15 August 2012 (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.

Self-promotion only account[edit]

Khursheed Khan Facebook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made two edits so far, both removing existing content to insert self-promotion. Both were quickly deleted (though no warnings given till later, by me), but perhaps this account could be blocked now as he is clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, without waiting for three more lots of silly vandalism for him to be warned about? PamD 08:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll be charitable and suggest he could be doing these edits in good faith, and just doesn't understand what Wikipedia's for. I've put a welcome template on his talk page that should get the message through. If he still disrupts pages, put a higher level warning template on and wait for a reply. If he still does it, and doesn't reply to his talk page, then blocking might be acceptable at that point. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, perhaps I was being a bit light on the WP:AGF - but removing good content to insert "come to my facebook page" stretches it! I usually add a welcoming template, but lack of AGF led me not to in this case. Will watch. PamD 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Assume ignorance of the rules :-) dangerouspanda 09:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ignorance and misunderstanding of what the encyclopedia is about. PamD 09:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And he's been around at least 10 days - see User:Khursheedkhanactor. PamD 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Facepalm Supreme facepalm of destiny. Oh my word. However, since most of those accounts aren't blocked, I can't honestly accuse him of outright sockpuppetry - perhaps he's lost his password. Still, competence is required - pick whichever the latest account is, tell him to use that one, and that one alone. I recommend using words of one syllable (although, in fairness, I suspect English is not his native language). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Have left a message on each of his talk pages except User talk:Khursheed Khan Pictures, where I see that username was blocked on 11 August as an unacceptable username - presumably on the assumption it was a film company! Have also, in passing, removed purely self-promotional content from the probably un-related User:Khursheed Khan of Dandoqa Swabi, whose only edit was to create a WP:FAKEARTICLE userpage about himself and his family. Interesting morning. PamD 10:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot and hoax content[edit]

Explanation given. The editor will try to be more careful in the future. Those who commented did not think that a block was necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this edit User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot added hoax content to Larry Storch. In this edit to Talk:Larry Storch he indicates that he did it intentionally, knowing it to be a hoax. It seems to be part of larger experiment to see how long it takes Wikipedians to catch this type of vandalism. However, when an anonymous editor removed the vandalism with this edit, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot simply reinserted it with this edit. In my mind this behavior is very detrimental to Wikipedia, but I would have been willing to let it drop. However, on several occasions (here, and here) I have asked Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot if he has similarly introduced hoax material into other articles, but he has refused to supply an answer. I have no choice but to conclude that there are other articles out there which still have hoax material in them that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has introduced. I am bringing this here to a wider audience so that others can look at his edits and help identify any other hoaxes/vandalism that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot may have added to Wikipedia articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. On July 10, I added some information, cited by Kinston.com, about an alleged noise pollution sentence by a Judge to Larry Storch, requiring him to play the teapot song in his car. I originally did not realize that this was satire, so I thought that I was adding valid information. However, a few days later, I realized that it was satire, but I decided to keep it because I wanted to conduct a little experiment to see how long it would take for the material to be reverted. The information was reverted by Gnome de plume on August 13, over one month after the material was added. This actually tells me of a potential weakness in our policies, or our enforcement of them, such that material in WP:BLP articles can appear to be well-cited and sourced yet still not be valid. So we, as editors, must be vigilant and cognizant of this, as well as aware of WP:RS issues. So no, I wasn't "vandalizing". I was just trying to illustrate a point. I apologize if I was seen as a common asshole vandal. WTF? (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. "Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize about that. I didn't realize that my little experiment went against WP:POINT. I'll try to be more careful so that this doesn't happen again. Also, to answer Gnome's question about whether I have inserted hoax material into other articles, I think if you review my edit history, you'll find that the vast majority of my edits are valid and not considered vandalism. WTF? (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't question the vast majority of your edits - I can see that you are quite a productive editor here. However, I think your reply continues to be completely evasive about the direct question of whether you have similarly added hoax content to other articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so to be more direct in answering your question, no, I have not added similar hoax content to other articles. This incident is a one-article incident. WTF? (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How is anyone to trust you on that? Consider this a single and final warning on breaching experiments on the encyclopedia: if any editor notices such again (including existing cases that WTF has not disclosed), ping me and I'll indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has still not accounted for this reversion of an editor removing their hoax insertion. This was done August 12, long after "the couple of days" that Foxtrot claim they had become aware it was a hoax. That edit doesn't really match their explanation about it being a "test to see how long before the material was reverted". --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's worth saying it again: We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. [17] - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Consider the possibility of a one-week block. This would be intended to reduce the frequency of unwanted experiments in the future. "Trying to illustrate a point" is something that our policies strongly frown upon. WTF's last effort in that direction was on August 12 so this isn't a long-ago problem. He was revert warring two days ago to restore information to an article which he knew to be incorrect. Any assumption of good faith faces an uphill struggle here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be punitive. WTF should hopefully now understand our zero-tolerance approach to inserting false material into articles. If not, his next block for the same will be his last. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the previously mentioned edit on August 12, I didn't say anything about that because I didn't see that as that big of a deal. To be honest, it was more of a reflex reversion instead of a hard-and-fast revert -- done before thinking -- and assuming that the anonymous IP in question was vandalizing. Looking back, that was a mistake. I don't think a block is really necessary in this case because I have already learned that this type of editing is wrong and not acceptable. I can assure administrators here that you won't see my username on this side of the fence at this page again. Thank you. WTF? (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I propose an experiment. Block Wiki Tango Foxtrot for a week and see how long it takes him to appeal the block. JOJ Hutton 01:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Rather than raise hell and blow this out of proportion. Just make this a one time warning not to disrupt/vandalise to make a point and leave it at that. Assume good faith this time and leave it be. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately AGF is running low when somebody gives themselves a trolling sig. GiantSnowman 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It isn't bright orange, doesn't have a drop shadow and isn't three lines long. I've seen worse. For now, WTF has had the only warning he should need (and the only one he will get) not to do this again, so I think we can close this off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (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:71.178.108.23 edit warring on multiple articles, strange edit summaries, removing WP:RS citations/POV pushing[edit]

71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

User:71.178.108.23, who was recently the subject of an ANI dealt with by User:EdJohnston here [18] after a report by User:Kansas Bear, has been active on numerous pages, edit warring, removing WP:RS citations and using unsourced non-neutral language. They have very recently been warned by User:Bbb23 here [19] and myself here [20], yet have continued to edit war removing WP:RS citations and continual POV pushing. Here are some examples of the type of editing and edit summaries involved- here [21], here [22], here [23] and here [24]. Could we get some admin attention on to this? Thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just some brief comments. I posted a final warning on the IP's Talk page, removed here, based on all the problems caused by the IP. It looks like the IP not only removed the warning but has continued their misconduct. However, I have not analyzed the IP's edits subsequent to the warning and don't have time to do so now (I have to eat dinner or I'll be shot). If another admin wishes to look at the events and block the IP, fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I am thinking of filing a sock case against this IP. Notice WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit. The IP's main interest is to ensure that certain articles about WW2 Croatian Ustashe figures are sufficiently negative. What is most noticeable is the abuse which he directs against editors who disagree with him. In my opinion a one-month block might be considered. Velebit was also noted for abusing other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh it's Velebit alright. I've been keeping track of his cross-wiki edits here. Osiris (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like here are, in joint action, three "experts" of Ustashe history. A common Wikipedia technique of character assassination is in progress: sock puppet, edit warring (!!), unsourced (!!) non-neutral language (!!) etc etc. Non-neutral language is to call war criminals politicians and intellectuals!! EdJohnston is always on guard when someone tries to "smear" image of his beloved Ustashe. The most hilarious attack posted on my user talk page is a claim, The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content . For this user, the long time dead war criminal Andrija Arukovic is a living person!!
  • All above attacks on me are just an excellent confirmation of the prof. Harnad statement about Wikipedia. Professor John Harnad, a world-renown Canadian mathematician, (who was blocked by Wikipedia) summarized his negative view about Wikipedia this way:

Wikipedia, on the contrary, is the enshrinement of contempt for learning, knowledge and expertise. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, an inner “elite” arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude all those perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted “rulebook” and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

It is truly a “Tyranny of the Ignorant”.

--71.178.108.23 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You've delievered that rant several times before (ahem), on this wiki, and on the strategy wiki. Give it a rest. Osiris (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit to allow action to be considered against 71.178.108.23 (talk · contribs) as a Velebit sock. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The SPI was closed, but I had another comment... Can the interested admins take a look please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

Reporting party's concern alleviated; no admin action required. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Trasamundo call me "Sockpuppet Santos30" 3 times in the Talk:Spanish_Empire. After I give clear explain in the Administrators notice board he call me another time: "Sockpuppet Santos30".[25]. I feel as a personal attack when he call me Sockpuppet after I give an explanation. It is a long discussion and I'm worried this brokes my Talk. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be a personal attack, yes. But it will not break your talk. pablo 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That calms me thanks--Santos30 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2012 (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:Minty10200 continued reverting of Dual Survival article[edit]

User:Minty10200 keeps reverting the Dual Survival page to unsourced or information from non reliable sources about Dave Canterbury being fired [26] [27] [28] [29][30][31][32]. These edits involve deletion of fully sourced material. Attempts have been made to engage with Minty10200 in talk and on their personal talk page but user does not appear to understand Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy and instead makes personal attacks, claims I am censoring the "truth" as an argument. I made attempts to locate reliable sources for the information user insisted on and added these to the page but no reliable source could be located that Canterbury was fired, only that he was no longer with the show. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit behavior continues [33] edits involve deletion of three sources and replaced with unsourced information. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the changes based on WP:BLP and WP:OR, and added a BLP warning on the users talk page. Nothing else to do yet, unless edit warring continues. Could possibly block for WP:3RR as well, but lets wait and see how the user reacts to this warning first. Blocking should be last resort. Try discussing on the talk page as well.--JOJ Hutton 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've tried discussing on the talk page and added what I could find that could be sourced to address their concerns but user seems more concerned that the "truth" is being censored then properly sourcing their information. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And the user was not notified. He has been now. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, it looks like JournalScholar and User:Minty10200 have each reverted 4x in 24 hours on Dual Survival. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for move protection at "Men's rights", and other action[edit]

Boing! says it best: "An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved, KillerChihuahua judged it well, KillerChihuahua did nothing wrong. Nothing to do here." - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Executive summary"

[Provided later, at Bishonen's request; see below.NoeticaTea? 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)]

An RFC concerning the article Men's rights was closed by admin KillerChihuahua at 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC), with this edit. There are reasons to be concerned about that closure, and about its possible consequences. That controversial article has long been under article probation, with many new editors springing up out of nowhere and behaving badly. Feelings run high. This recently closed RFC was the work of a completely new account, who strangely knew exactly what to do. The notice at WP:RFC was vague and uninformative (deceptive, really); and it made no mention of a move for the article; but that's what it turned out to propose, among other more convoluted "reforms". Everyone at the talkpage knows that the title has been hotly disputed, and indeed there was a failed RM in November 2011 (hidden away in an archive, now; and barely referred to this time around), attempting the very same move. An article under probation must be treated with great care and propriety; but the participants in this recent RFC ignored the established principle in titling policy at WP:TITLE: all moves that are likely to be controversial should be processed through the formal procedures laid out at WP:RM. Well, that process led to "no move", last time; but it may be that someone has tried to sneak a move through without notifying the community. Most editors interested in RMs watch WP:RM; but nothing turned up there about this irregular process. So of course the RFC, started in a suspicious and surreptitious way, drew comments from those who monitored the page itself rather than from a spread of the wider community (as in a legitimate RM, and as happened last time for this page). Most irregular. Worst of all, admin KillerChihuahua closed off the long and fuzzy RFC (apparently within 19 minutes of first encountering it) without attending to what policy demands and what the community expects. I request that the page be move-protected, and that these errors be corrected. NoeticaTea? 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Background
The RFC had run since 10 July, when it was initiated by newly registered user JasonMacker within the first four edits he ever made under that username (see record of his contributions, and note the three relevant edits, which together add 15KB of well-formatted text to the talkpage: [34], [35], [36]). A bot duly posted the RFC notification at WP:RFC, with this text from JasonMacker's post:

"Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and If feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as WP:SYNTH issues."

There is no suggestion of any move of the article in that notification. But at the RFC itself (on the talkpage), the text continues like this:

"I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, because the current scope of the article is only dealing with the men's rights movement. ..."

And a great deal more follows that.
Back to the present
KillerChihuahua was called on at her talkpage to close the RFC (by Slp1. See this edit at Talk:Men's rights; and see this edit at KillerChihuahua's own talkpage (22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)), to which KillerChihuahua replied (01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)):

"Sure, I can do it; it may take a bit for me to read through it; I wasn't even aware there was an Rfc there. :-/ So I'm not up to date on it."

19 minutes after making that post (saying she had been unaware of the RFC, and would need time), KillerChihuahua wrapped up the RFC, whose text runs to more than 5,000 words. (That edit again: [37], timestamped 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC).)
That is, on the face of it, 19 minutes to assess a complex and often rambling RFC proposal and discussion. But there is more. For most of that RFC discussion there had been only oblique mention of an RM in November 2011 (duly processed according to WP:RM protocols), which is now archived. The proposed new title was the same as in this RFC, except without capitals: "Men's rights movement". That RM was closed in this edit and the preceding one, without moving:

"The result of the move request was: not moved. The article has changed significantly since the majority of the comments were posted. The majority of the current article is not about the men's rights movement per se. A new move request may be proposed, although a separate article on the movement itself (separate from the rights) would probably be a less contentious undertaking. Aervanath (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"

KillerChihuahua had commented at that RM (but did not vote). She was therefore aware of the genuine RM, and of the closing admin's finding that "a new move request may be proposed"; but this recent RFC was not part of the standard procedures laid out at WP:RM, and was never advertised to the community, in any proper forum that people have on their watchlist, as involving a move. A serious failure to inform the community.
Now, perhaps we must suppose that KillerChihuahua found time in the critical 19 minutes to read the present RFC (5000+ words), check key links in the RFC, review the only genuine RM for the article (8000+ words; making a total, with the present RFC, of roughly 27 A4 pages, single-spaced), check the state of the article itself, formulate a response, type in that response, check it, and close off the RFC.
Important to note also: at 06:30, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC) KillerChihuahua began this article probation page for the article; and article probation remains active.
Despite that article probation, I do not at this stage document anything about the style of KillerChihuahua's recent posts on the article's talkpage, preferring that the more substantive facts be addressed as a priority. I claim that the closure of the RFC was hasty and improper, and that the only legitimate way to determine a move for this article is given unequivocally at the relevant policy page, WP:TITLE:

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made.

It is beyond doubt that Men's rights, under long probation since before a properly conducted but failed RM, is "potentially controversial". It is equally beyond doubt that the initiator of that probation knows full well how controversial it would be. Yet admin KillerChihuahua appears to have ignored a clear ruling in policy, and to have acted precipitately. I raised a complaint about this at the article's talkpage (see Talk:Men's rights#Improper closure of discussion regarding a move of this article), because I am particularly interested in RMs and also in Wikipedia's treatment of gender issues. I had participated in the properly conducted RM of November 2011, and wondered if there might be another one some time. I check the WP:RM lists daily; but no RM was notified. Almost certainly, other interested editors also missed the opportunity to have their say. It is therefore not surprising that a different and smaller cohort of editors, for the most part, took part in this RFC; nor is it surprising that the tendency of opinion was different this time, given that only "locals" knew what was proposed in this RFC.
What happened next?
Kevin Gorman has written (see the section I started, liked just above):

The minor procedural points [sic] that have been brought up are easily covered by WP:NOTBURO. If you disagree, please take this to ANI within the next 24 hours or I will begin to implement the close.

Hence this post, which I make reluctantly. KillerChihuahua does not agree to reverse her extremely poor administrative decision in favour of an unadvertised attempt to move a highly controversial page; so I feel I have little choice.
Proposed remedies
  • An immediate move protection of the page, while the matter is discussed here.
  • A retraction of the admin action that closed the RFC with a decision that the page be moved.
  • Continued move protection of the page, until either a new RM discussion is conducted or the matter is referred to some other appropriate forum for determination.
  • An affirmation that clearly stated policy provisions at WP:TITLE are to be respected, in the processing of move requests.
  • Consideration of further actions under the terms of the page's article probation (for which I reserve the option of presenting evidence from the article's talkpage).
Notifications of all named editors

Thank you!

NoeticaTea? 11:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


    • Sorry, I don't understand how the name question is controversial, could you give an executive summary of that, please, Noetica? Sending people to the discussion on the Men's rights talkpage to find out would be a little cruel, since it is, as you say, very… uh… very full of words. (I gave up in something like despair, myself.) Obviously an article on men's rights is going to be controversial, but what's the big deal about what it's called? Is there a tendentiousness in either of the names — "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement" — and if so, in what way? That's surely the main point at issue. A pocket version of why it matters would be much appreciated. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. I have now taken the opportunity to explain my concerns more succinctly at the top (see "Executive summary"). I was at pains to get this done before the deadline set by User:Kevin Gorman (see above), and I knew that ANI demands all the diffs and details. So I rushed to give all that, and had no time for highlighting key points early on. In fact the naming issue looms large in its own right for this page, as in most matters of gender politics. But I was most concerned about the abuse of procedure by admin KillerChihuahua, who ought to have acted with probity and caution but did not. She doesn't hesitate to wield the tools against any suspected miscreant, and she set up the special article probation for Men's rights – and uses it, you can be sure. Yet her own behaviour has been appalling here. No doubt she will have support for "political" reasons, at such a political page. But Wikipedia has to rise above such bias, and so must its admins. I respect Wikipedia policy, and I expect to see our admins do the same. When I drew KillerChihuahua's attention to her lapse this time, she did not for a moment stop to consider that I might have a point. But I make my point with reference to due process, and to clear and established policy. That's the bottom line; and any opinion expressed here that ignores the administration of Wikipedia policy by admins seems very odd indeed. To me, at least. What do you think?
NoeticaTea? 14:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for summarising your previous long post, but I'm no wiser regarding the question I asked. I must have been unclear. I try again: what's the significance of the difference between "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement"? Is either or both of them tendentious? Politically, ideologically? If not, or if the difference is too subtle to be briefly explained here, why do you care about timestamps or shades and niceties of procedure, and why should we? I have trouble forming an opinion about the administration of policy in response to your challenge ("What do you think?"), as long there is this vacuum in the middle of the room. (Kind of the opposite of an elephant, if you see what I mean.) Bishonen | talk 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC).
The difference between the two is not the issue. In fact, I have no time to analyse all the gradations of meaning and connotation in the two competing titles, nor to form a new opinion based on the vague to and fro of the recent RFC, or on developments in the article itself. I did not take part in the RFC. I wasn't alerted to it in a way that would have got me interested. The point is this: many readers do contest the content of Men's rights, and along with that they naturally do contest the title – and even whether the article should exist. Since they do contest all that, and since behaviour has been so reprehensible in editing and on the talkpage, special sanctions were imposed. Article probation, by KillerChihuahua. That places an onus on everyone involved, including especially herself. She has failed in her duty, as I have shown. As I write, I am still waiting for anyone to show any defect in my appeals to policy at WP:TITLE, and in my call for calm, slow, openly declared deliberation toward genuine consensus.
I'm afraid that if my concerns are to be dismissed as to do with "niceties of procedure", then I might as well give up. Is policy at WP:TITLE a mere ornament? Are the duties of an admin to assess a month-long discussion (with its deep and obscure background) properly dispatched in 19 minutes? News to me, at least! ♥
NoeticaTea? 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to butt in but the difference is this: the men's rights movement can be sourced but there has been significant offsite WP:OWN issues (meatpupetry & personal attacks most of which have been aimed this time at Kevin Gorman) but also attacks on BLPs to prevent renaming because apparently renaming the article effects the movements campaign and we shouldn't be touching "their" article. I can't link to the bad sites but this article from Jezebel covers it--Cailil talk 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
To try to answer Bishonen's question (and as she says, that talk page is "very full of words"), as far as I have been able to figure out, the difference between "Men's rights" and "Men's rights movement" is that "men's rights", as you might expect, has to do with fatherhood, men breaking gender barriers, changing unreasonable societal expectations, and opposition to media portrayal of men as sex-obsessed womanizers, and incompetent, misogynistic, brutish slobs with few redeeming qualities; whereas the "men's rights movement" is made up of activists like this:[38]. There are several dozen websites more like that one, some specifically about Wikipedia; if you want to see more, just ask.
As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with the "men's rights" article right now is that it is considered to be lacking in reliable sources and full of unsourced, non-NPOV material added by single-issue editors recruited from other websites. Changing the title to "men's rights movement" will open the door to using these sources now considered to be non-RS, since you can reference someone's own blog for information about themselves.
Neotarf (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is there is no agreed upon definition of "men's rights". The term doesn't really exist outside of the current men's rights movement. So any article titled "men's rights" is going to have inherent POV, OR, and RS problems. This is why all the regular editors of the article want to move it. If you look at the article's talk pages, it's just the same arguments over and over again, almost all related to lack of sources outside of the men's rights movement. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer: I participated in the RfC. This RfC ran for over a month and had nearly unanimous consensus to move (7 support, 1 oppose). In my opinion, Noetica's claims that this discussion was somehow irregular are unfounded. The reason it only took KillerChihuahua 19 minutes to close the RfC is because the results were relatively clear. Noetica is welcome to start a new page move discussion after this page move is complete, but I can't see any reason to block the action of this RfC at this point, per WP:NOTBURO. Just my 2 cents. Kaldari (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Kaldari, you write: "Noetica's claims that this discussion was somehow irregular are unfounded." But you do not address the concrete points that I make at all. Read them, and answer them. Note the points about the misleading RFC notice; note the hard black-letter statement of policy at WP:TITLE. I look forward to your response to those, rather than your expression of opinion that simply fails to engage with the submission I have made. NoeticaTea? 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by KillerChihuahua: the Rfc was open for a month, and was publicly listed, so I don't know why Noetica thinks this was "unadvertised." It was open for over 30 days, listed to the community via the Rfc boards. The single oppose in the Rfc agreed with the proposer that all the sources speak of men's rights movement (&activists etc) rather than men's rights, and wanted to rewrite the article to match the title better, rather than moving the article to the desired name. To questions about how to write an article where none of the sources use the term you want to write about, he had no reply. So 7 support, and 1 oppose, with the one oppose granting validity and concurring with the rationale for moving. No, it didn't take as long as I'd feared it would to read that, and it seems quite clear to me that consensus is to move, and the Rfc was sufficient to that. I note Noetica voted NOT to move in the earlier RM, and seems to be relying heavily on "I didn't vote in the Rfc" possibly to give the impression of neutrality. No challenge has been made that consensus is not to move the article; Noetica's complaint is procedural only; that an Rfc is procedurally wrong to decide if an article should be moved to a new name, if that article has ever been at RM in the past. I don't see how any admin would have closed in any other way than I did; there is more than one way to determine consensus, and the Rfc was very well and cleanly done. If there are questions, I will try to answer; but I will be afk off and on for a bit so pls be patient if you ask and I do not immediately answer. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
[After edit conflict:] KillerChihuahua, you write:

"the Rfc was open for a month, and was publicly listed, so I don't know why Noetica thinks this was 'unadvertised'."

Well, address what I have clearly laid out above. The notice of the RFC was deceptive. You did not address that earlier, in your actions or your hastily assembled comments; you ignore it now. Not good enough: for an admin who expects so much from others, and is ruthless with those who fall short.

"The single oppose in the Rfc ..."

Well, stop to think. There might have been more opposes, if people had known about the move proposal that was smuggled in. I watch for RMs very closely; but I had no way of knowing about this one through any accepted channel. You do not answer this point, so far. Please do.

"I note Noetica voted NOT to move in the earlier RM, and seems to be relying heavily on 'I didn't vote in the Rfc' possibly to give the impression of neutrality."

Well, we all like to give an appearance of neutrality, don't we? ☺ Anyway, as I stated, yes: I voted then. But as I also stated at the talkpage, I have formed no opinion after exposure of the present complex of issues in the present RFC. My reading must be a little slower than yours. In fact, I'm damn sure it is! I am more interested in style matters for Wikipedia, and titling principles, than I am in that truly impossible article. I am close to neutral about how things go there for content, because I think nothing can be done to give it stability. Hey, life's too short.

"No challenge has been made that consensus is not to move the article; ..."

Right. No sufficiently wide consensus has been sought for anything, because the nature of the RFC was not revealed to the community. You failed to pick that up, in your 19 minutes of administrative deliberation.

"Noetica's complaint is procedural only; ..."

Sure. Aren't many of your concerns procedural? Isn't this admin forum deeply concerned with procedure as laid out in policy? Isn't the article probation page you set up for Men's rights concerned with procedure? Don't we require admins especially to safeguard established procedure?

"I don't see how any admin would have closed in any other way than I did; there is more than one way to determine consensus, and the Rfc was very well and cleanly done."

Astonishing. You form that opinion, in less than 19 minutes? And then nothing will persuade you to contemplate an alternative judgement? Well, I won't try any more. But others will determine what to do here. An alternative (once again, and just for the record): an admin could take more than 19 minutes to assess a month of discussion, and could look at the present state of the article, the extent to which relevant policy has been respected or flatly ignored, previous RMs (if any), with previous admins' decisions, and so on. If an admin is too busy to do all that, an admin can hand the matter on to someone better situated. Theoretically.
NoeticaTea? 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
[My comment above was posted after the next comment by KillerChihuahua.–NoeticaTea? 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)]
TL, DR version: Noetica doesn't say the consensus is not to move. Noetica's complaint is procedure wasn't followed. WP:NOTBURO: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. ... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ...A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: this is not to be taken that I agree with Noetica that a procedural error was made; I do not. I find a public listed Rfc which runs for 34 days sufficient to determine this. I merely note that even if the complaint is technically correct, that is no reason to ignore clear consensus which follows policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I say that there was no well-founded consensus either way, in a deceptive and irregular process that you failed to diagnose. In the 19 minutes you allocated to the administrative task you took on. There was no "consensus-based discussion"; you failed to see that, and you seem unwilling even to consider that you might have been in error, or that you acted impulsively – despite the hard evidence of timestamped diffs. "A public listed RFC"? You continue to ignore the obvious response to that disingenuous characterisation. Are you as forgiving with those you would block at the drop of a hat as you are with yourself? You cite policy selectively from WP:BURO, as it suits you; but you leave out this part: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused." And you totally ignore the most relevant policy in this case, at WP:TITLE. See above. You abuse it by ignoring it.
NoeticaTea? 15:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Semi-involved comment: I didn't take part in the RFC mainly because I try to stay away from editing in this topic (due to long standing harassment by offsite elements) but notwithstanding that I've contributed to this topic over the years. Noetica's contention is that somehow the RFC is not good enough to determine consensus this is pure wonkery - it's also incorrect. I also have a major problem wit the massive assumptions of bad faith being levelled at KC. IF there is a procedural error say that don't construct an argument based on assumptions of bad faith it's thoroughly unnecessary and does not help a topic that is under community probation due to severe battleground issues--Cailil talk 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, assertions. Got an argument to support your contention that the falsely advertised RFC was good enough to determine consensus? How are the rest of us supposed to know about it (as a covert proposal to move the page), in the first place? I have shown the highly questionable way in which it arose; strange that no one else bothered to detect the fact that a new editor came up with so finely tuned an instrument, when detections of sock-puppetry and Satanism of every stripe are the norm at that talkpage.
As for assuming good faith, yes: you might try that. Please do.
NoeticaTea? 15:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Since Noetica has brought it up now twice, I have been tested at 900wpm at 100% accuracy and 100% retention. I was tested once at 1000wpm but retention dropped to 98%. My normal reading speed is between 500 and 700 wpm, and of course I scan much faster than any of those times. I would appreciate it if no one bothers me about this in the future; I have found that once people know they pester me about it and it's a little embarrassing. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I confess that I did wonder. I mean, you complained at the talkpage of Men's rights about my "wall of words", when I replied to your c. 100 words with my own c. 100 words (neatly interspersed with quotations from your own 100, for crystal clarity). I also note that you misread an exchange on my own talkpage, which you trawled for to make a personalising point against me when I dared to impugn your administrative actions. So yes: let's not talk any more about that.
NoeticaTea? 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
for those who are curious, I believe Noetica refers to this edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My main reaction after reading this thread was "Wow, Noetica really dislikes KillerChihuahua." Which is to say that I pretty much agree with Cailil's statement - if you think there's been a procedural error, that's fair enough to ask about, but you're making some rather astounding leaps of bad faith in how you're describing the situation, and I'm left with the impression that this is about "getting" KC, not about whether the article should be moved or not. I don't believe there's any particular reason an RfC can't reach consensus for an article move, so my feeling is that even the charge of "procedural error" here is weak. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be healthy to move beyond mere reactions and on to hard-headed analysis though, wouldn't it? I have no feelings about KillerChihuahua herself that have any bearing here at all. But I have opinions about her actions, and her responses when those actions are evaluated against the demands of policy. Perhaps you should look at her rather extraordinary assumptions about me, and her attacks on me when I criticise her actions head-on. It seems to me she can give it, but can she take it? I don't dislike her for not being able to, if that is the case. But it doesn't help in the fulfilment of administrative responsibilities. Anyway, if a procedural error has been made, let's just get it undone – and we can all move on. That's all I'm after. Should I not be? ☺?
NoeticaTea? 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My "mere reaction" is my analysis of the situation, after reading the evidence available. For whatever reason, you dislike KillerChihuahua and/or her actions at an emotional level, and you are lashing out from that level. Maybe you think you're not, but it's really, really clear that you are (or else that you're doing a fantastic job acting exactly like someone lashing out from an emotional level). We are all here trying to tell you that the issue here is a non-issue. An RfC happened, it went the way you didn't like, it resulted in a move. None of that is something that needs to be reversed in such dire circumstances as to be an emergency action from ANI. There is no evidence of malfeasance - or even an error - here from KillerChihuahua. You need to stop beating that dead horse, because all its doing is making you look like the sort of person who resents horses. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, there some pretty basic confusions there. You don't respond to the points I make at all; you respond as if you have some privileged access to my psyche, and you're really sure of what you think you see. Well, don't be. It would be no one's business anyway. Evaluate the claims about admin conduct, read the date-stamped diffs, review WP:TITLE, and respond to all that. The rest is a distraction: and frankly, an insult. What is or is not an issue is not determined by any sort of appeal to groupthink, but by the hard evidence and arguments produced here. If you or anyone fails to grasp, or prefers not to grasp, the issues as they are laid out, then that is a fact to be lived with. I can live with it perfectly well. I have a certain respect for policy; it's not my fault, or ultimately my anguish, if anyone else doesn't do the same. You make declarations about KillerChihuahua's innocence, with no iota of evidence. I think we should beware of such unargued expressions of sentiment as much as of ridiculous distortions like: "An RfC happened, it went the way you didn't like, it resulted in a move." I advise you to pay attention. I would not have wanted that RFC to go any way, set up in any such way, conducted in any such way, or closed in any such way. Yes, I am concerned about gross departure from established procedures that would yield real, durable consensus. Once again, should I not be? ☺?
NoeticaTea? 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to assume bad faith or sinister ulterior motives of anyone here, but I ended up at the "men's rights" talk page because of this rather confrontational message [39] left on Noetica's talk page. Neotarf (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've already addressed what that message was about here and after; once the move discussion closure was protested, then nothing could be done without either (a) Noetica withdrawing his complaint or (b) outside opinion. (In that post "she" and "her" refers to Noetica; I was going by the ending "a" which is usually female, and erred. I have since corrected the gender.) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
While we're on Noetica's talk page, it looks like there have been some disagreement over the point of view that the article should take. [40] I notice that there was no response to Noetica's inference that he is not welcome to edit that particular article. Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"he is not welcome to edit that particular article" is not how I would summarize that post by Noetica. It reads to me rather differently. As to no response, there was no question, merely a series of complaints and disparaging comments about me. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not the only one who did a double take at that message. Another editor found it "unexplained but very possibly WP:POINTY and threatening". [41] Neotarf (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And the comment I link to above was my response to him. I have already asked you on your talk page how "waiting on you" is a threat. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • TL;DR (well I did, but I'm still a bit lost). I do have a question. Is it proper for an admin to be contacted on their talk page to resolve an RfC, especially if they've commented in a related area in the past? I imagine anyone would have closed it the same way, but that still seems a bit less-than-ideal. On the main question, a 30-day RfC on the talk page of the article really should be enough for anyone who cares about the topic. That said, the wrong process seemed to have been used. Is there a reason not to now use the RM process since someone has objected _and_ (given the last RM) there is reason to believe such a redo might get a different result? I'm not seeing a reason to rush and I like the idea of there being a fair process. That a sock started the RfC (which is what it has to be) just muddies the process further. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    Slp1 contacted me because I'm sort of the "uninvolved admin of record" - I wrote the probation page and have been active enforcing it in the past, and my comment "Reminding editors of applicable policies is helpful advice, not bullying - and playing the victim does not release you from your obligation to follow the policies." on that thread was in that role, none other. I also around that time made a number of other talk page edits in that role, such as "You are in error. This article is under probation; you will cease such hostile posts or you will be sanctioned, I assure you. Your choice." [42] and I answered a few questions as here. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ah, thanks makes more sense. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    You're welcome. I appreciate the concern, but at no time have I made any comments in any role other than that of uninvolved admin ensuring policy was followed and sanctions enforced. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'll confirm that I contacted KC because they have been working as an admin on this article for nearly a year; they are not, and have not, been involved in the article otherwise; I would not have asked them if they had. I don't agree that User:JasonMacker is clearly a sock. There is a real life person of that name who has some related interests to be found the internet, and the long post he made analysing the article [43] shows unfamiliarity with WP policies about WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. More importantly perhaps, voice/content is quite different from other editors who have posted on the talkpage previously.
As others have stated above, I don't see that a "wrong" process was used, or that any rerun is necessary. There are multiple ways of discussing page moves, and it is process wonkery to insist on a rerun especially when the discussion, which included article editors who know the literature and new voices, was pretty much unanimous.
Finally, I am appalled by the multiple bad faith accusations against KC and others that have permeated this discussion. No wonder admins don't want to work in difficult areas such as this, when they are given this treatment. Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification on KC, sounds like all was perfectly resonable there. Secondly, having 6 wikilinks to guidelines/policies/essays in your second post isn't unthinkable. Nor is starting an RfC in your first 10. But it does certainly look seem highly unusual. Finally, I just don't see the problem with waiting a week or so for an RM. I doubt it will change anything, but I also don't think the delay is harmful and it might get some additional voices. Like I said, I think providing everyone a fair shake on things important to them is good. It helps with editor retention and generally makes people happier. So there is a point to the process wonkery IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • People had a fair shake on this. An appropriate process was used. For a month. A clear consensus was reached. I don't see any reason to reward an editor who takes such a narrow view of consensus decision making, especially when it is done in done in a highly inappropriate, accusatory manner. If Noetica really feels that the page should be moved back, let him start another discussion in a few weeks, on the merits of the move rather than technicalities. Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • An appropriate mechanism (RfC) was used, a clear consensus for move was achieved, KillerChihuahua judged it well, KillerChihuahua did nothing wrong. Nothing to do here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2012 (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.

Implied legal threat by "Still-24-45-42-125"[edit]

Clearly misinterpreted (in good faith) as a legal threat. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone who has been active on any of the regular notice boards in the past few weeks is probably familiar with User:Still-24-45-42-125, a former editor who claims to have previously edited only as an ip, but three weeks ago created a new account and has racked up over 1600 edits in that time. Thats a large amount of edits in such a small amount of time, even for us high edit guys. But the number of exist is if no concern. It's what "Still-24-45-42-125" has done in three weeks. He has been pushing POV on as many articles as possible, including and not limited to Mitt Romney dog incident, Chick-fil-A, Paul Ryan, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, ect, ect, ect. Most of the edits show a lack of any neutrality at all. Every edit seems one sided and focused toward a particular POV. A few threads on this page have already focused on much of User:Still-24-45-42-125's editing pattern, so I won't go into any more of that here.

What is of concern is a perceived implied legal threat by the user saying, On the advice of council, I'm not going to comment on the above action. If the user has currently retained "council" because of something that is happening on Wikipedia, I think some action needs to be taken, such as a block, until this "legal situation" can be resolved, per policy.--JOJ Hutton 22:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • All due respect to Jojhutton, that statement would not deflect me from weighing in on the matter were I so inclined. Mentioning legal representation in an on-wiki discussion appears to me a waste of pixels, but I wouldn't find the effect "chilling". Tiderolls 23:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Not chilling, but they way I read WP:NLT is that if a user has a legal issue on Wikipedia that requires the need for retaining a lawyer, the user account should be blocked until such time the legal issue is resolved.--JOJ Hutton 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That's a legal threat on the same order as pushing a doorbell and running away. However, if the guy's edit-warring, he needs to be stopped. P.S. On the advice of council (namely, the Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga), I will be trying to stay away from election-related articles this year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
        • (EC)Ya, me too. I'm just siting back and watching all the fireworks this year. No need to get into all that drama, which in the end will amount to nothing.--JOJ Hutton 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • One needs to venture a bit beyond "legal issue". The first paragraph of WP:NLT specifies "litigation" and the second refers to "legal action". Tiderolls 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not even sure where I should be posting this at. He has a habit of harassing me on my talk page which I've told him to stay off my talk page constantly. For example, 4 of those edits discusses over vandalism issues that I've reverted other users and he felt the need to chime in and intervene on behalf of them although these other users (1 was blocked for a week) did not object to my reverting of their vandalism or changes. If this is the right place, good, if not, please point me in the right direction. ViriiK (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd need to see diffs to help you ViriiK, but that might be better accomplished posting to my user talk. Tiderolls 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
To Viriik: This is the correct page to report alleged harassment, but maybe another thread, but I imagine that two threads would only be merged in the end anyway. Like Tide rolls said, add some examples of what you considered harassment to help us out.
To Tide rolls: That's just my interpretation of the policy, based on It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, but its just my opinion that it looked like a legal threat. I'm sure when the user sees the message he/she will have a good explanation for the comment.--JOJ Hutton 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
JOJ, my "all due respect" was sincere. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just need to see a more overt intent. Tiderolls 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I have posted on Tide's talk page. Feel free to look there. ViriiK (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Oh my gosh, I know it was. In fact it brought a small tear to my eye. <sob>, <sniff>, <sob>. No worries and sorry if I sounded combative in my last. Didn't intend to. And respect back at you.--JOJ Hutton 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that comment at WP:3RRN and was troubled by it as well. It's one of those kinds of comments that is hard to analyze because it's not really coherent. I left a message on the Talk page of the admin who closed the 3RR report just in case they wanted to do anything. I don't suppose we can block the editor until he learns how to spell counsel properly?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's getting wikipedia editing advice from his city council? In any case, as legal threats go, it's pretty much a bluff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was meant as a joke in reference to Viriditas trying to help him here Arkon (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the third attempt of a bad joke then. "Have you beaten your wife today?", "kill", and now this? ViriiK (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this kind of verbage is not a good idea and perhaps the user should be warned, but as a threat I don't see it even boarderline as the statement has no intent of any kind of action. He doesn't state he intends or might take an action of some kind. The use of the term "on the advise of council" could really just mean he has been advised by another or counsled with advise. It does give the impression that some sort of legality is at hand and that does make some uncomfortable but i don't see it rising to the level of threat. I would suggest he be "counseled" and advised of the rule and the perception he may have inadvertantly created.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
He's clearly referring to the conversation with Viriditas on his talkpage. There's nothing for an admin to do here, so I am closing this. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2012 (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.

Talk:Misha B & Misha B[edit]

Wrong forum for this; WP:BLP/N would be the correct board to post at. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have requested a WP:NPOV/N partly over the issues following an earlier DRN that did not get a response.

Background Misha Bryan (born 10 February 1992), known as Misha B, is a British singer-songwriter who came to national attention in 2011 when she was a contestant in the eighth series of the The X Factor (UK), during the series the was a controversy, on live TV in front of 11 million viewers, where she was accused of being a bully. This was taken up the tabloid press, gossip mags and internet forums in a heavy media circus kind of way and the are many folks who hate Misha Bryan for it. The Accusations themselves where without verified evidence and most likely groundless.

1. Talk:Misha B Should these be removed. This relates to lots of unsupported bully accusations on this artists talk page, it has not been affected by revision history. Bias about bullying

DRN Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article? Too much information and way too biased

2. Misha B

My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included), but not for her biographical article.

But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there.

To briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation UNDUE WEIGHT and open to interpretation (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if its not covered and supported by verifiable evidence.

But does it conflict with BLP.

...Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:15, 16 August 2012 (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:Beyond My Ken[edit]

Since I can't find the insult in that comment either, guess I will close this per OP. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 02:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to report the following PA and BITE by User:Beyond My Ken: [44]. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 00:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a personal attack. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
DJSasso, are you saying that because you believe that if A says to B that "it is interesting to ask if B has DNA that shows the signs of recombination under a trade of earthly pleasure for monetary gain" then this is not a PA, or are you saying that because you think that until we know that B is not indeed the son of a prostitute and a client, anyone can get away with talking to him this way? →Yaniv256 talk contribs 00:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with that comment. Please just proceed doing good things and show there is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq, would you be surprised to learn that I believe that asking the community to inform BMK that he is expected to apologize, is a good thing, mostly for BMK, but also for Wikipedia? You and I know how easy it is to apologize when learn you hurt someone. BMK needs to learn that too. All I ask is that you do not stand in his way. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 01:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yaniv256, you need to be informed that BMK did not make a personal attack against you. --Rschen7754 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If you really think that then he was able to administer an insult right over your head. Intelligent people tend to use that trick to get away with talking dirty, and derive quite a bit of fun from it. I do not know BMK, but his user page suggests that he is very intelligent and a guy I would probably like quite a bit, if he bothered to be nice to me. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Three other editors have now agreed that there was no personal attack. This sounds like a case of WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I yield. Case closed. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 02:02, 16 August 2012 (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.

Abuse of process by Lionelt and Belchfire[edit]

WP:RFC is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize for not having all my ducks and diffs lined up, but this report is a product of frustration, not planning. As you may be aware, Lionelt admitted openly that he plans to pester me with reports until I get blocked repeatedly and give up.[45]

I don't have a full list, but along with his buddies from WikiProject Conservatism (Belchfire, ViriiK and Collect), he's lodged false reports against me for 3RR, SPI, ANI and more. You can see Belchfire's most recent attempt above this. Lionelt has gotten me blocked once, but only by miscounting reverts.

I'd like you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&pe=1&#User:Still-24-45-42-125_reported_by_User:Belchfire_.28Result:_.29 and tell me this isn't the most obviously false report you've ever seen.

I'm asking for administrators to intercede, not on the bogus 3RR, but on their admitted vendetta against me. In specific, I suggest an interaction ban, but I'm open to whatever will actually keep them from harassing me in the future. I am absolutely sick of this. Their actions -- quite intentionally -- have made it difficult for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but you've brought it on yourself. You've received a ton of advice and you've neither listened to or followed any of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am fully responsible for their behavior. I also make the sun rise in the morning, but when it rains, that's also me. Let's always blame the victim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You should read WP:NOTTHEM. You may need it soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And I, in turn, suggest WP:MYOB. I'm hatting you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The linked comment from Lionelt is basically just an exposition of WP:ROPE. It's not very nice when editors are that candid, sometimes, but nor is there anything actually wrong with it. The only way to get out of this particular trap is to behave yourself. Trust me when I say that if an editor repeatedly leaves bogus warnings on someone's talk, or cries wolf at ANI, then it is the antagonist who usually finds himself subject to scrutiny. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be, except that he and his friends have actively followed up on this with false reports. I trust you when you say it ought to boomerang, but it hasn't. It's impossible to actually contribute to an article like Paul Ryan while dealing with multiple false reports on a given day. The last time I wasn't able to respond (because I was sleeping), I got blocked despite a provably false claim. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battlefield. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're taken to 3RR by this group of editors again for a claim which is provably false (i.e. as bad as the one linked above), let me know. (incidentally, ANI's conflict detector has been on crack the last couple of days. attempt #5 here.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I think you're going to lose an editor at this rate, because I'm not willing to put up with this BS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I personally believe you're clearly edit-warring, as per the definition, here's my idea: there's millions of articles. Go edit ones that will cause you less grief for awhile, and take the hotbed ones right off your watchlist. WP:BATTLE can go both ways. dangerouspanda 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's make a deal. From now on, you'll only get to edit articles that don't matter, that you care nothing about, on topics you know nothing about. In return, people will stop gaming the system to get you blocked. Sound like a good deal? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a deal. Feel free to compare my contribs from this account, to those from my User:Bwilkins account - none of the articles on my main account are even on my current watchlist. So, now we can move on, yaaaaay. dangerouspanda 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You can't control other people, only yourself. So focus on what you can do to help end the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
All good advice, but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles, that's a double-plus ungood for Wikipedia. I'm sure it contributes to the gradual reduction in the numbers of regular editors we've seen. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It contributes to the systematic bias of articles. For example, Ron Paul is a virtual hagiography. The way you get there is to team up against editors who are active and effective at enforcing WP:NPOV. Get rid of them and you've got it made. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125, you give as good as you get. Is WikiProject Conservatism coordinating in order to immanentize the eschaton? Probably, but what WikiProject isn't coordinating? When I brought this up earlier on the council page, the consensus was they aren't doing anything wrong. So it seems like a waste of time to rehash that when the community already looked into it (at my personal request) and found nothing out of the ordinary. Best to work it out like colleagues on the talk page in a calm manner rather than calling for blood. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Coordinating to improve the articles within a project is a good thing. It is, after all, what projects are designed to do; however, coordinating to get rid of good editors just because they don't have the same ideology is most definitely not good. Editors who do this should be advised by administrators that such activities are inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I obvious agree with you, but the community does not. I also think you would have a hard time proving your case. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The abuse of process is continuing. A 3RR report is supposed to be about demonstrating evidence of edit-warring. Instead, Lionelt and Collect are spreading dirt. It doesn't matter that it ranges from blatantly false to desperately misleading. It just has to bias admins against me so that they overlook the details, such as the lack of edit warring. There's a saying about this: "Don't wrestle a pig. You'll both get muddy but the pig likes it." Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try shaving with Occam's razor. A more prosaic explanation is that Lionelt etc. don't really understand the policies and guidelines, many of which are intentionally esoteric. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's totally what happened. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, they understand them well enough to abuse them. I'm a noob here yet I know that ANI/EW is not where you complain about civility or whatever. Occam's razor says they know what they're doing. I'm not the first editor they've "assassinated". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I have diffs from recent discussions on my talk page indicating that both Lionelt and Belchfire don't understand the policies, so yes, ignorance is one part of it and a contributing factor involving the bogus 3RR report. Are they intentionally filing false reports to silence their opponents? That is what Still-24-45-42-125 is trying to argue, but there isn't enough evidence at this point. Best to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Panda, the result of granting WP:AGF is taking away WP:COMPETENCE. In the end, it doesn't matter why they're abusing the system, only that they are. And, yes, since nobody's going to stop them from abusing the system, this discussion is pointless. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In a way, it's a libertarian paradise (i.e. street battles in Somalia). Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


My name is bandied again? Mo notice from the OP even? I would suggest to Scjesey that his post at [46] etc. with edit summaries of Temporary break from the fuckwittery was the only reason I did not file a WQA on him after I asked him to delete personal attacks at [47] on 14 Aug for such posts as [48] And yes, I said you are deluded. And your recent comments also demonstrate that you're a dick as well with the edit summary of replies to assholery <--- more ammo for Mr Purer-Than-Driven-Snow and similar gross and egregious personal attacks on me and others, as noted many times (including a finding by ArbCom Scjessey (talk · contribs) has helped create the battleground atmosphere with a string of bellicose, polemic and uncivil comments in the run up to this case which shows an ongoing civility problem for the irascible Scjessey himself. So when I asked politely that he redact his attack, he "retired" for only enough hours to post an attack on me here, of all places! Scjessey, when you take a break, it meand to take a break and not to appear instantly to make further attacks. Really. And yes -- I find but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles to be a direct accusation of meatpuppetry made not only without foundation, but egrreegiously so. I find however, coordinating to get rid of good editors just because they don't have the same ideology is most definitely not good. to be an egregious violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is getting ludicrous when an editor makes such accusations repeatedly, egregiously, without foundation, takes a "wikibreak" which is not even a "wikibreak" and then continues his attacks. Wikibreaks are not intended to allow such behaviour. Cheers. (BTW, I am not a member of any Wikiproject to the best of my knowledge, nor am I "buddies" with anyone - I watchlist well over 2500 articles, covering a very wide range, and I am not a meatpuppet, sockpuppet or any kind of puppet whatsoever! Nor have I "lodge false complaints" against Still24. I find this report sullying my name to be itself egregious behaviour on Still24's part. Collect (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of anything in this thread, Collect, although it doesn't surprise me that you've showed up to attack me in this new forum and repeat your trumped-up charges. My "wikibreak" is a break from my watchlist. I can define my wikibreak in any way I see fit, as they are not part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I respectfully suggest you dial back your mock outrage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You showed up in this thread. I showed up afer being notified by an editor other than the OP who did not notify me as required at all. Your wikibreak had an edit summary noted above -- and was quite blatantly in response to my polite request that you redact your attacks. You showed up here and made comments - while you were on a "wikibreak" on a topic where the OP bandied my name. That you view this as Wow. This guy follows me everywhere is another blatant and egregious personal attack. All good advice, but when groups of editors coordinate to hound good editors off certain articles, that's a double-plus ungood for Wikipedia. I'm sure it contributes to the gradual reduction in the numbers of regular editors we've seen from you damn well seemed to refer to the cabal averred by Still24, and seemed to say that such a cabal exists. It does not exist. Period. So much for your comments accusing anyong of "stalking" here, and so much for your "faux wikibreak". (I request you redact your attacks on me which violate WP:NPA on their face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC) seems polite IMHO) Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You're making yourself look a little silly and hysterical, dude. Especially with your blatant and egregious overuse of the words "blatant" and "egregious" in most of your discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Does Collect look a little silly and hysterical? Maybe. Is he overusing the word "blatant"? Most definitely. Was he lumped in with a group of "buddies" to be tarred and feathered for something he wasn't involved in? Looks like a big yes to me. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of "guilt by association" myself, and I can tell you, there is no merit to this kind of approach. If and when Collect errs (and he does) feel free to bring that up. But do not lump him in with others merely because he belongs to the same Wikiproject, or has the same POV. You've done two things wrong with that; you've not only inappropriately added him to a complaint about which he had nothing to do, you have now weakened your own case by distracting from your real complaint. Puppy's heartfelt advice; don't do this. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And since I do not belong to "the same Wikiproject" I found the claims that I do to be a teensy bit errant. And I still do not like having an OP not notify me when he inserts my name into the mix at the start. Collect (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hence my use of "or" - I probably should have used "perceived" for the POV as well. I believe the point is clear enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, This wasn't Scjessey's complaint. --OnoremDil 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Apolgiesm I was adressng Still-24-45-42-125; I regret any confusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • slightly off topic Can someone uninvolved please look at Still's recent (and frequent) use of hats on discussion boards? Little green rosetta (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[49] is interesting as it clearly shows Still24's aims here, there's nothing I can do now to stop the WikiProject Conservatism posse from continuing to file false reports until I'm blocked unless they are prevented from doing so. Which is a blatant misuse of the noticeboards, is contrary to the Five Pillars, is opposed to collegial editing, etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Advice to All editors in conflict with this thread WP:DROPIT Back away from the dead horse. For each thread I've seen and thought about banging your heads together like 2 empty halves of a coconut I've held my tounge. No longer. Still-24, in some cases a cadre of editors is going to form a mafia around a topic space. Try editing other topics similar, but not directly in their line of fire. Be fastidious in your observation of the rules/guidelines/essays of Wikipedia. If their behavior is so out of line other editors will see it and call them on it. Scjesey and Collect, please don't use annother person's complaint thread to re-ignite your flamefest with each other. Advice has been given, let's move on from this locus of drama and get back to improving the Encyclopedia as a whole. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there are serious issues at the core here, but this thread isn't going to help deal with them. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Request close: if anyone wants to bring a well-formed RfC against WikiProject Conservatism, I would be happy to co-sign (provided it is relevant and cogent to the issues I previously raised at the Council talk page linked above) but this isn't the place. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (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.

Request for unprotection[edit]

Range de facto blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

82.132.249.193 (talk · contribs · 82.132.249.193 WHOIS) has requested that User talk:DeFacto be unprotected on my talk page. I protected DeFacto's talk page a few months ago after the second of his/her many socks edited that talk page. Rather than summarily declining the request because I can't see how unprotecting the page would benefit the project, I'll bring the issue here for community resolution.

Please note that several IPs in this IP's range were recently named in the latest edition of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto, and this appears to be the same editor[50]. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:BOOMERANG. CityOfSilver 20:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 3rd time isn't charm This makes the third time I've piped in on this topic. At WP:RFPP, I refused. On Toddst1's page, I made it known I was against it. I'm still against it as the IP hasn't provided a valid reason why he needs to edit the user page of another user. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Looking at it, this IP geolocates in the same area as other socks, and their grammar and style is extremely ducky. I'm going to dig, if someone doesn't beat me to a rangeblock first. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, consider a two-week rangeblock of 82.132.249.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). See the recent contribs from that range. It seems likely that this could be DeFacto evading their block. See another charming remark here. It defies belief that 82.132.* is going to acquire any credibility the way he is going now. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2012 (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.

Goatse[edit]

We got the sock's goat(se). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phidippus (talk · contribs) has me suspect — user's first edit was nominating Goatse.cx for Good Article. I really doubt that a first-time editor would know how to successfuly file a GAN, and given the site's notoreity, I have a feeling that shenanigans are afoot. Any suggestions? Checkuser perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Goatse as a GA? That would be quite a stretch. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
And the boy wins a cigar, for best punning situation of the day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't resist... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, to play devil's advocate there, WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows the creation of a second account for privacy to avoid having one's real name associated with highly controversial topics. In any case, the user hasn't edited for 10 days or so. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a sock. Blocked by Ironholds. GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:44, 16 August 2012 (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.

Advice on a failed RTV[edit]

28bytes has unvanished accounts Nobody Ent 10:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see [51]

Short summary:

    • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
    • I ask Magog about the deletion
    • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
    • I also notice that the contributions are missing
    • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
    • I come here

My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If you could link me to those that would be great. -Removed previous bad reading on my part- Arkon (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    And by the way, this needn't be user specific. I tried to not mention names for that reason. In similar situations (SA), the contributions remain. Arkon (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah [52], I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's in the original report, right above you.
I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."
I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Wiki