Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765

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

Noticeboard archives



Block was justified, currently no need to worry about email access. De728631 (talk) 13:29, 21 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.

At User talk:Dickmojo, I declined an unblock request and revoked talk page access - the reasons are on the talk page. Dickmojo is now claiming (by email) that I acted improperly as I had acted in a previous dispute about acupuncture - the details of that case are all still there on the talk page. At the time of my current action, I had forgotten about the acupuncture issue and was not aware that this is the same person. But as Dickmojo is alleging bad faith on my part, I thought I'd better ask for a review - if anyone thinks I did act improperly, or even disagrees with me for any reason, please feel free to revert or amend my actions as you see fit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The revocation of talk page privileges was warranted based on pugnacious BLP violations. Dickmojo clearly wouldn't accept that he can't repeat allegations of criminal activity as fact, and wanted to continue repeating them in his discussion of an unblock. It's really no different from an editor who is blocked for attacking another editor and then repeats the attack in an appeal discussion. Good call.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've reviewed Talk:Julia Gillard some more now too, and have redacted and rev-deleted more edits that I think were BLP violations - edits that represented the various allegations as "undisputed fact". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Good block. Should email access be removed? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Has 4 unanswered UTRS tickets re: the block currently. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm amazed he's gotten away with that username for a year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Re email access - he hasn't emailed me again, so unless he misuses it in some other way, I don't think there's a pressing need to disable it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 20 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.

Same-sex marriage talk page/Witherspoon Institute[edit]


I'm sorry for bringing this trivial matter here, but I don't know of any more appropriate forum. If you can suggest a better one, I would be glad to close this report and move the issue elsewhere.


Discussion on Talk:Witherspoon Institute hit a brick wall because there's just me and User:Belchfire, and we are unable to come to agreement regarding some material that he kept removing from the article.[1][2] (As this was a violation of WP:BRD, I left a notice on his talk page[3] which he removed without comment.[4])

The material removed from the article concerns Witherspoon's opposition to same-sex marriage, so I decided to invite more editors who have some interest in the subject by leaving a short, neutral note on Talk:Same-sex marriage, carefully designed to comply with WP:CANVAS.[5]


Belchfire responded by hatting the note so that it would not be seen, while accusing me of votestacking.[6] To the best of my understanding, this is a direct violation of WP:TPG. I reverted the hatting exactly once and notified him of the violation.[7] He responded by removing the notification without comment[8] and edit-warring to restore the hatting[9].


What's funny is that this is apparently a trap for me to fall into, as his comment is "Report if you like, watch out for the boomerang". As a result, I fully expect him to be ready to put as negative a spin on my behavior as possible, bringing in out-of-context diffs that are unrelated to this issue. In the text of the hat, he also acknowledges that he is familiar with WP:TPG. Presumably, he is suggesting that he can defend his actions through some interpretation of that policy. I guess I'm just calling his bluff and trusting any admins who respond to have good sense.


I would like him to agree to remove the hatting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


An uninvolved editor, perhaps in response to the report, removed the hatting.[10] If Belchfire doesn't edit-war to restore it, then this report should be closed. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment While Belchfire probably should not have hatted StillStanding's comment, StillStanding certainly could have picked a better venue for asking for another opinion then posting to an article's talk page. WP:THIRD comes to mind, since only two editors were involved. However this new ANI incident is another example of WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LAWYER issues related to StillStanding.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer
    16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Er... 2 days ago you and Belchfire launched a federal case against StillStanding for refactoring other peoples' talkpage comments. Remember? Now you're teaming up to refactor his comments and complaining about his response. I'm not sure which party in this thread is most hypocritical, but at bottom I see a small group of partisan editors treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. This doesn't reflect well on any of you, and it's not going to end well. MastCell Talk 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I am in no way condoning Belchfires hat, as I indicated above. I fail to see how you can draw such a conclusion. Furthermore, in the previous ANI that I raised on my own, without any coordination from any other editors, was for the sole purpose of having someone that Still believed to be "neutral" inform him that his refactoring was unacceptable. In that thread I also displayed my displeasure of the piling on when other editors started to engage.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer
        18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You're leveraging this incident to build a case for some sort of substantial sanction against StillStanding. And he may well deserve such a sanction, but the level of hypocrisy and gamesmanship on display here is really disappointing. If StillStanding hats someone's comment, he's at fault. And if someone hats StillStanding's comment, he's also at fault? MastCell Talk 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • He is certainly at fault for bringing this up here. It was unnecessary and to be frank, a bit pointy. He could have addressed this at many other venues but chose the drama option. But hey, let's AGF and chalk it up to the fact he didn't know this was an improper venue and next time he will know better. I'm out of this one.  little green rosetta(talk)
            central scrutinizer
            19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Huh. And yet here was the perfect place for you and Belchfire to launnch you particular veendetta agaainst him. Really really not buying your conveniently shifting standards of what is or is not appropriate. --Calton | Talk 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Problem: This obnoxious and disruptive behavior by StillStanding(247) is not a first-time occurrence. In fact, it's becoming a habit:
  1. Here, he is seeking help at Homosexuality to back him up at Focus on the Family [11]
  2. Here, he is seeking help at Sexual abuse to back him up at Boy Scouts of America [12]
  3. Here, he is seeking help at spanking to back him up at James Dobson [13]
  4. Here, he is seeking help at Same sex marriage to back him up at Witherspoon Institute [14]
Still-24 has an array of tools available when new eyes are needed in a discussion, including RfC, DRN, Third Opinion, and noticeboards dedicated to NPOV, OR, BLP, and other matters. Why doesn't he use them??? The answer should be obvious: he's not looking for neutral editors. He's looking for editors to help him obtain his preferred outcome in content disputes. This motivation is clearly illustrated here [15] in Still-24's own words. (Q:"Are you here to build an encyclopedia?" A:"I'm here to fix some articles.")
These are disruptive attempts to create false consensus [16] by cross-posting inappropriate notifications [17], seeking to attract partisan editors in violation of our policy on consensus-building [18]:
"Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable."
Still-24 has already had the problem with this behavior explained to him by an admin, [19] but he simply doesn't listen to anything that he doesn't want to hear. Hatting his off-topic posts on Talk pages is done per policy [20]:
"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal."
That is all. Belchfire-TALK 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
So hatting inappropriate posts is OK? That's funny, because when StillStanding hatted your inappropriate commentary, you ran to AN/I to try to get him sanctioned. That was two days ago. And now you're hatting his comments ("per policy") and demanding we sanction him. I'm sure there's an explanation for this besides simple hypocrisy and gamesmanship, but I'm struggling to find it. MastCell Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Pointing out that an editor has a poor grasp of policy is not uncivil. And by the way, there is an essay that should be governing your behavior right now. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, without even commenting on anything else, it is grossly innapropriate to tell an admin on ANI to mind his or her own business. This is ANI. Admins will comment on the threads here, that is part of how Wikipedia works. Your response to MastCell, a highly regarded administrator, is unacceptable behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's fine; I've said what I have to say here anyway, and I'll leave this for other admins to sort out. MastCell Talk 19:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the prejudicial "highly regarded" descriptor, if MastCell was here to act in his capacity as an admin, I'm pretty sure he would have said so by now. Instead, it seems to me he is here in some other capacity. As are you, KC. Both of you: if you're here to admin, then do it. If not, then what's really going on here? Are either of you involved in the incidents? If not, then what's really going on here? WP:MYOB seems to fit the bill. If you're not here to clarify and/or enforce policy, then why are you sticking up for one party in a dispute where you emphatically say that all sides are guilty? I smell something, and it ain't flowers. Belchfire-TALK 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
He is "being adminny" by responding here, as am I. If you peruse the extensive archives of this page, you will find most of it is simply discussing the issues brought here. I'm not sure who you are addressing the rest of your comments to, but so far as I can tell, Mastcell did not "stick up" for anyone, he commented, as is appropriate, on the incongruence of your reporting Still for hatting and asking for sanctions a couple of days ago, and then turning around and hatting his comments. Your approach here is combative and insulting to the very admins who are trying to help with problems. Not a recommended approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Belchfire, I'm not sure where you got the idea that an admin has to actively put on their admin hat to be acting as an admin. At AN/I, it's more often the opposite. (not-an-admin) - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: if you all don't find a way to work out these issues without going to AN/I every two days you're all gonna end up before Arbcom. If that happens, no one is going to be happy with the result (which will likely be a combo of blocks and topic bans for all involved and discretionary sanctions on these articles). Sædontalk 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this thought occurred to me. I posted this anyhow, because I didn't see any other way to get Belchfire to stop edit-warring in violation of WP:TPG. If you have advice on a better way, I am entirely open to it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Frankly I'm inclined to take it to arbcom now. It seems as though every time I expand looking at articles on these topics, I find another fight involving most of the same people. I've given up either editing the articles or discussing them in talk. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
We could do that, but it's going to be as much about Belchfire and the WikiProject Conservatism group as it is about me. I've been working on my personal skills and done a much better job as of late on getting along with others. But it doesn't seem to apply to this particular group; their behavior has been hostile from the start and has remained so. They're free to disagree with me, but edit-warring to violate WP:TPG is too much. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be an RfC on WikiProject Conservatism, but you're not helping things by distracting us from that goal. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. Right now, though, I'd really like to be able to post an invitation without having it hatted over and over again. So, yes, it's a separate issue, but it's a pressing one for me. If there were a better venue, I'd use it.
While I'm on the topic, I should probably comment that I've read WP:CANVAS and it appears to be entirely acceptable to write a neutral invitation addressed at all editors on an article. My choice of articles has always been dictated by the nature of the disagreement. In this case, we have a dispute about same-sex marriage so I posted to Same-sex marriage. The same is true for the other examples that Belchfire gathered; they're all no-brainers based on the topic. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything left for me to comment on, and since Belchfire has not restored the hatting, this report looks like it's concluded. There are some still-open issues that were some raised here, and they'll be followed up on, but in a more appropriate forum. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Belchfire, you would do good to tone it down. This is "Administrators' Noticeboard/ Incidents" (note the apostrophe after Administrators). The primary function of this board is for admins to offer guidance, although anyone is welcome to participate. Telling an admin to mind his own business, when this board is designed for precisely what MastCell is doing, is clearly out of line here. Try going to WP:AE and telling one of the Arbs to piss off and see how far that gets you. Stillstanding brought the issue here and presented it in a neutral fashion, something I would want to encourage since the events between you two have been less so, previously. MastCell's comments are instructive and appropriate here and he was acting as an admin. Your comments are not appropriate. The majority of the function of being an admin doesn't require the tools, only common sense and objectivity. I suggest you read up a bit on admins so you can understand that in the future, and don't make the mistake of telling anyone participating in a discussion at AN/I to "mind their own business". And since you haven't read up yet, please note that I'm acting as an admin here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Jamesluxley (talk · contribs) has been creating some highly confused OR screeds at Oikema and elsewhere (see AfD) and has disclosed a link to his private homepage ([21], [22]) which explains the agenda behind it – an agenda that, frankly, can only be described as lunatic. Given the degree of obvious delusion displayed in these ravings [23][24], can we cut the story short and apply the inevitable indef-block right away rather than wait until it all moves even further down the inexorable road of wiki-madness? (I guess I count as "involved" now, having brought the page to AfD.) Fut.Perf. 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, " I believe Wikipedia is a front operation also. They delete almost everything I add or write". It's blatantly clear from this person's weird ideas that we do not have someone here who would be a useful contributor to the project, for obvious reasons. I've imposed an indef block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've also reverted this change, as it was sourced only by a translation of "πορνείο = brothel", and there's no way we can trust any of this guy's unsourced factual claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Just FYI, πορνείο actually is Greek for brothel, so at least he got that right.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh yes, the translation was right ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Actually, πορνείο is Modern Greek (whereas the article he was editing deals with ancient Greece). The Attic Greek word was πορνεῖον. Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was torn for a while as to what tool to use. I've decided to use the edit tool to supply a rationale, that you can all refer to with "per Uncle G", to the AFD discussion. ☺ That was a bit of a lurch, changing tracks from a week of Cyrillic to NT Greek. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm glad some sanity has been restored. What we should all learn from this experience is: never "put" your womenfolk "in a house", because it means something nasty, and it doesn't end well [25]. ("Or so they say, but I don't believe it.") Fut.Perf. 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is of any interest, but shortly after I reverted the very first edits that Jamesluxley made I got this friendly warning from an IP:
    • "Hi. I can see that you have reverted a contribution made by user:Jamesluxley on the article Frederik's Church. I just want to warn you that this user may be an old "villain" Haabet from the Danish wikipedia, a user who is known as being false positive while inserting nonsense. Please keep an eye on him! - (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"
  • Even though I edit on the Danish Wikipedia, this one seems to have been banned before my time, so I can't say if there are any similarities, but I notice that Jamesluxley does apparently claim to know some Danish and Swedish (as well as his first edit on English Wikipedia was to a Danish related article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And if you read his web site, there's some Danish stuff there - Carlsberg is a Buddhist Viking United Nations conspiracy, or something like that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That's from Jamesluxley (talk · contribs), which the Danish Wikipedia deals with by simply reverting and blanking. Haabet (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Haabet (talk · contribs) the English Wikipedia has already blocked and there's no reason to suspect that they're the same person. In any case, Haabet signed xyrself with xyr actual name over on the Danish Wikipedia, and that was (and is) someone else. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just in case anyone is still interested, he's been further updating his site with his account of his experience at Wikipedia - here. (But don't blame me if your brain melts and starts dripping out your ears before you get to the end). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh my god, my brain, look, it's dripping all over my keyboard nmnm,kjekjdfm,nm,n,nm,nm and it's only your faullkllllmmnmnbnnmnmn,lklkljmn,m ..... Fut.Perf. 11:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Right, folks. Ridiculing people isn't going to get them to go away any faster: conspiracy theorists thrive on ridicule. We've established that this content isn't appropriate in the slightest, so let's quietly keep it that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau99 and Zoophilia[edit]

Plateau99 indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 21 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.

Plateau99 (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia for some time and has been solely focused on Zoophilia and its sub-articles for the past couple years. He has been blocked for edit warring three times in the past nine months on Zoophilia. A couple days ago, two experienced editors, Someone963852 (talk · contribs) & Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), began to rewrite the page, having found major issues with sourcing and neutrality. Plateau99 has since accused them of "anti-zoophile bias"; he initially tried to revert them but then opened a Dispute resolution noticeboard thread on which he stated that they should be reverted because "[their] version of the article is too anti-zoosexual". Plateau99 said of his version that "There were some citation problems, but the solution is not to erase all of the information at once. The solution is to find sources that match the sentences." This makes me think that he is here to advance an agenda, rather than what reliable sources say. Guerillero (talk · contribs) weighed in at DRN, and said The only thing I can think will help here is a topic ban or an indef block and the DRN can't help there. I agree with him, so I'm bringing this here to suggest a topic ban or a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The diffs are at DRN if you would like to see them. I can move them over here if anyone requests them. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am not trying to advance an "agenda", I am only trying to ensure that the article in question (and others like it) are not censored. One of the things that makes Wikipedia good is its ban on censorship, and the recent edits at the article in question seem to counteract this rule. I also agree that the zoophilia and the law article had POV/neutrality issues -- however I think the recent edits made to the article may have gone too far.
I also want to point out that other editors such as Someone963852 have also been blocked from editing for edit warring. The reason I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:DRN was to resolve this dispute without another edit war. Plateau99 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some of the recent changes that got Plateau99 and me blocked for a month. I included an explanation for each revert, which he failed to do. [26] I reworded this for a neutral tone, but Plateau99 reverted without an explanation (like he did to all my other changes he deemed as not "pro-zoophilia" enough). [27] There are several problems with this. Both the article he used are opinion pieces, and the sentence should not be stated as though it were a definite fact. The “opposed to forcing sex upon animals” is not anywhere in the “browpalm” source listed. Plus, nowhere does it make a statement that “most zoophiles are not cruel to animals” in the second reference used to cite that portion. The “scientam” ref says “In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said.” Those are opinions. From zoophiles. This is a section titled “against”. It is not a place for him to refute it with false content or biased opinions. It is against the neutral POV policy. [28] Plateau99 is adding false, pro-zoophilia content by using random sources (which do not back up those claims) to cover them up and make it seem legitimate. The link he used to source that added info does not exist Bestiality new Aids myth – SPCA], but the actual article is here - which is from the same site and matches the article name he was trying to add. What Plateau99 tried to add: "In Africa, a myth developed in which bestiality was believed to spread AIDS, and people avoided the meat or milk of such animals.” From the ‘’’actual’’’ source: "The National Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) says it is horrified at claims that having sex with an animal prevents people from getting Aids. The organisation says bestiality neither prevents Aids nor is it a cure for the deadly disease."
Those are just some few examples, there are more examples on the Zoophilia talk page and the history pages. Someone963852 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Plateau's edits look a lot like advocacy. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] --Guerillero | My Talk 03:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Plateau You are correct that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that that is the issue here. I'm not trying to insult you by saying you're advancing an agenda, but it seems like you want your view of the subject to dominate the article. On Wikipedia, we try (or are supposed to try, at least) to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) by following what reliable sources say about the subject (WP:RS). Your statements at DRN suggested to me that you sought to write down your views, and then find sources to support them if possible--which is a problem in general, whether we're talking about Zoophilia or politics/religion/etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to point out that source about the AIDS myth was not originally posted by me; yes, I did re-add it, but was not aware of the fact that it was a bad link. Once it was proven to be a bad link, I did not re-add it. In addition, while my edits may appear to be "pro-zoophilia", keep in mind that I was attempting to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) in the sense that I was trying to balance the article with views favorable to the subject, since there were already views condemning it.
I also believe that in an article about zoophiles, the opinions of zoophiles (the source of what the article is about) should at least partially be represented by a reputable source -- in this case, the Broward Palm Beach Times. The fact that the information in the Broward Times came from zoophiles does not make it invalid. In addition, sentences on Wikipedia do not have to exactly match what is said in the sources (which, without quotes, would be plagiarism), which is why sentences were added which did not exactly match what was in the source.
As I stated at the DRN, the sentence I said was taken out of context (and made to appear, in bad faith, that I had an "agenda") -- the sentence meant this: any sentence, made by me or any other person, should not be immediately deleted only because it lacks a source, and should be considered for inclusion if a source can be found. (And if a source cannot be found, then it should be deleted). Plateau99 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can not add a bunch of unsourced, non-neutral POV original research to an article, expect it to stay on, and have other editors find sources for it. And I doubt there even are sources to support those unencyclopedic content. Someone963852 (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Being neutral is not "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In this case "anti-zoophilia" is referring to a POV in the opposite direction. In other words, when information which appeared to be "pro-zoophilia" was removed, those edits inadvertently caused the article to become potentially "POV'ed" in the other direction. I only bring up "anti-zoophilia" as the opposite of the term people keep using in bad faith ("pro-zoophilia"). In reality, there is no such thing as "pro-zoophilia" or "anti-zoophilia"; or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be on Wikipedia. Plateau99 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, and there is no requirement for anything "pro-zoophilia" to be in such an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The same can be said for those who oppose zoophilia and view it as abuse (they also "advocate", just against it). Since those views were already represented in the article, it made sense to balance it with an opposing view. WP:NPOV is based on the idea that an article should not lean too much to one side, and that is what I was trying to do. Plateau99 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Point out specific parts in the two articles where you think is "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. NPOV does not mean equal space for all ideas; it means that non-mainstream ideas are included but not given undue weight --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The good versions of the zoophilia Wikipedia article (i.e. the ones made by pro-zoophilia editor Plateau99) will always be there; but if the anti-zoo troll "someone963852" gets his way, the only way people will be able to see the good versions of the article will be to go to the top of the article and click "view history", and then click on one of Plateau99's revisions. Unfortunately, I believe that most people are probably not going to do that, and will only be exposed to the bigoted version made by Someone963852. From the "Beast Forum." [35]. Always remember kids, assume good faith - and happy editing!.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The main reason why I attempted to add information from sources which appeared to view zoophilia favorably was because the article was already suffering from WP:UNDUE, just in the other direction. It should also be noted that a number of concepts coming from those who oppose zoophilia could be considered "fringe"; in other words, those in favor of zoophilia have stated that those who oppose them are "fringe", and those against zoophilia have said that those in favor of it are "fringe" -- it depends on whose perspective one is looking from.
Also, the quote that User:Bali ultimate just cited was from a non-reputable site (a forum site). I cannot control what people think about what happens on Wikipedia, all I can do is say that such comments are not relevant. Also, Bali ultimate's use of sarcasm (maybe?) could be seen as borderline WP:PA. Plateau99 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You're not going to find any usable sources that advocate screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, there have been some reliable sources which have favorable views towards zoophilia (not "screwing animals"). Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Zoophilia is a clinical-sounding euphemism for screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, zoophilia encompasses a range of different subjects, which may or may not include having sex with them (animals). For example, some zoophiles don't have sex with animals at all. Plateau99 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Which category do you fall into? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Which parts of the two articles do you see as too anti-zoophilia? Point it out. Someone963852 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Because the zoophilia and the law article (as it is now) is very different from the way it was, it is difficult to say exactly what was/is "anti-zoophilia" in terms of content. But as the zoophilia and the law article stands right now, there is a section ("Common reasons for given laws") stating why zoophilia is banned, but nothing to counteract such claims. There used to be a section highlighting the impact that such laws had on zoophiles. But with that removed, only the opinions of those who oppose zoophilia are represented. Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Because those reasons are what put those laws in in the first place. It is not anti nor pro anything. This has gone on far too long, and I'm sick of replying to you when you should be blocked from Wikipedia for repeatedly adding non-neutral POV, original research, false citations to make claims seem legitimate, and other contents that are against Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why you're still here and I hope an admin does something about it soon. Someone963852 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Here we go again with the personal attacks. That alone should reason enough for you to be blocked, not me. I'm not sure what you mean by "false citations", but I can assure you that the citations I added were not "false". And as I stated before, I was trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines -- adding information to balance the zoophilia and the law article and satisfy WP:NPOV, trying to protect content from being erased (to satisfy Wikipedia's anti-censor policies), and prevent the blanking of large portions of information without a legitimate reason. I can see getting rid of a few sentences here and there which may not conform to NPOV standards, but the blanking of information (including cited information) is against Wikipedia's guidelines -- which is why I brought up the issue in DRN in the first place. Plateau99 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not possible to find a valid source which endorses sex with animals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not true; there are in fact sources which view zoophilia favorably (they don't "endorse" sex with animals). Some of these sources include: Broward Palm Beach Times, Peter Singer (Princeton professor), Hani Militski, the Scientific American, etc. I also want to point out that my opinion of zoophilia has no relevance to the edits I make; they may appear "pro-zoophilia", but in reality what I'm trying to do is create a fair, neutral article (in good faith) which represents multiple viewpoints. Plateau99 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Trolling. Duh. Say "Buh-Bye" to it. Doc talk 05:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked, indef. Clear case of disruptive agenda editing in my view. Fut.Perf. 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision there, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources could be found that support a pro-pedophila point of view aas well, but don't think for one hot minute that sort of thing would ever be allowed to slant the Wikipedia's pedophile topic articles to make that activity come across as more favorable. Sex with animals is not a right, people are not being discriminated against because they are prevented from practicing it. WP:NPOV means to treat all significant points of view fairly; the view that zoophilia is normal or acceptable in society is so far down the scale of deviancy that it does not even register on the scale. It does not deserve and should not be given equal footing in any Wikipedia article alongside the overwhelming sources that are critical of and condemning of the practice. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well said. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
FP, I definitely don't object to the block, but your block notice says that the editor is blocked "temporarily" which might be confusing to anyone reviewing the history of this matter in the future. -- Atama 05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed that now. Fut.Perf. 05:22, 21 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.

Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion[edit] (talk · contribs)


This IP address is the primary for this longterm Michigan external link spammer. An analysis of their IP ranges is here.

This particular address is for a Michigan library. Last May a 3-month block was set for abusive editing (presumably by a third party), and that block expired a few days ago.

Since their primary IP was blocked, the original ext link spammer (editor I am now complaining about) used several other IPs, as detailed here.

Earlier this month, the primary range of alternative IPs for the ext link spammer was blocked for 30 days as a result of my prior ANI against this editor. That block is still in effect.

However, the editor has been busy with the same old behaviors, and has received many short term blocks as detailed here

As I post this, (talk · contribs) is engaged in block evasion yet again.

ACTION SOUGHT: Please block for another 3 months, and please re-start the 30-day clock that is now running (but is being circumvented) as a result of my prior ANI (link above). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS As I explained in the prior ANI this is chronic low level disruption of the climate pages. No single edit is really hugely terrible but the repeated posting of ext links with a demonstrated intent to not bother trying to actually improve anything is a large chronic disruption to that subject area. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments in Michael Servetus article[edit]

User Anatoly Ilych Belousov, who seems to be a SPA that is devoted to the promotion of the work of one particular scholar, has been repeatedly making uncivil and derogatory comments about me in his editions related to the Michael Servetus article, just because I questioned that undue relevance was given to what should be considered as fringe research. He first started throwing at me a COI accusation without even trying to make any previous approach, thus violating WP:AGF. The situation became so difficult for further editing the article that I opened a Dispute Resolution request. I edited the article according to the terms of the Dispute Resolution, limiting references to fringe research to one section and paragraph in the article, but this started a flame war of this user against me, including personal attacks and derogatory comments, both in edit summaries (see here and here) and also in the article's Talk page (see here and here) including violations of privacy, using this Talk page for outing private activities of editors rather than focusing on the contents of the article. I would expect that this uncivil behaviour be stopped. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This case was previously discussed at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 42#Michael Servetus Especially note the closing comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
IMO the only valid accusation (of those claimed above) is the violation of WP:PRIVACY in this edit summary (and I would say it is severe one). Other alleged violations of WP:PRIVACY include disclosing the information that was previously revealed by Jdemarcos, while I see no personal attacks or derogatory comments in the links to evidence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that claiming that I say "bullshit", or "You have no idea what you talk of... read a litle", or that my editing is "obnoxious" qualify as derogatory comments. While educated disagreement is acceptable, disqualification of other editors' intelligence or good faith is not. --Jdemarcos (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are lying, and the administrators can check it. It is not true you were not listened, I already explained that. you were listened for more than two monthes. You disclosed information for everyone to know who u are. And U are closely connected to the people you refer to, Alcala and HIllar, even in the same picture. While a disclosure of private information could be indeed unpropper, the administrators could check you are seriously involved in the MSI, in referring your friends, and of course in editing everything that has to do with the Crown of Aragon. You are simply blocking anything that has to do with Gonzalez. far beyond the dispute. That is why your comment says " the document of naturalization is not a discovery , this proves it was known for 50 years". You keep with the same thing. That document was recovered by Gonzalez, and I explained in the edition summaries why. You know it, and after the dispute you main objetive is to try to attack Gonzalez. So, your intention is clear, change whole biography, and you tried to change the Zaporta references, but you cannot, because there is no previous document that says " Michael is converso cause of his relation to the Zaporta" before 1999. You tried to change it and write statements such as " it was known". False. Again, that discovery is by gonzalez, and you tried to diminish it. You started your edition saying he was just a pediatrician,.. and in your reasonins you start to talk of Alcala and HIllar, which you refer a lot, even you made those sections for them in freedom of consciousness, and so. And now when confronted with evidence you are so involved in an institution that expelled gonzalez in 2005, you say it is not my fault most of worldwide agree with you. No, they can agree with the old version of Servetus, but they do nto agree with you persuing anything related to Gonzalez. Such, as Zaporta, Naturalization( already explained in edition summaries), etc. ( besides the works). The disclosure of privacy , which is a pic,.., was for me a try to show to the administrators what was going on. Actually I understand it annoys De Marcos a lot, cause it shows what goes on. He persues gonzalez, according to the policy of the Michael Servetus Institute. And yes, that is obnoxious. And yes, you have no idea of what you talk of, as I noted, you added teh comment " by whom" in the manuscript of paris, and that same information was in many sources you were referring before. So I keep saying that. Read your own sources, which are in the pic with you. And, do not call the director of the MSI ( bachesopi user, also in the pic with you), the next day after you complain, in order to edit wikipedia. For me a COI. You are very involved, but none reacts to the information. But you lie. It was me who edited most of the dispute resolution, and it was just when you kept in your tries of editing things related to gonzalez, when I reacted, cause of your obsessions, which have nothing to do with disputes, but Gonzalez himself, as the policy of the MSI dictates you, and as the director tried to edit as well.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR - The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Educated disagreement is OK, personal attacks are not, unauthorized disclosure of private information to support your accusations definitely is not. As for the [by whom?] template, it is customary to include it when a reference to authorship is lacking and therefore a claim is unsupported. It does not imply ignorance from the person who added it. Sometimes it is even used as a marker in order to come back when a valid reference is found, or other editors may find it first. That is common practice in Wikipedia that you may not be familiar with. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Telecineguy and spam promotion of book[edit]

Can someone tell User talk:Telecineguy to stop spamming multiple article pages and their talk pages with promotional content for a newly released book complete with the price and "ref" links directly to Amazon? thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Side note: small correction - not that new George Obama; Damien Lewis (2010). Homeland: An Extraordinary Story of Hope and Survival. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-7617-7..... Moxy (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
oops - I think that there are also issues with English not being the primary language of the user. Piecing things all together, the book was apparently "published" a number of years ago but was not "distributed" at that time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The editor also does not understand that there is more than one Damian Lewis in the world. He keep trying to add it to the page for the actor. I don;t think we have an article for the author. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Moore & Co.[edit]

I only have access via cell phone while I travel, so would appreciate someone looking at this while I'm away. At Benjamin Moore & Co. I had removed added content as the formatting of the addition made it appear to be copy/paste from another source. The removal was questioned, then restored by a third party without addressing the concerns in the content removal. I hope that it's not a copyvio; but that needs to be clarified. --- Barek (talk) - 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio or close paraphrase too close to pass muster. The use of the trademark symbol makes it look very much like copyvio. I've reverted the editor who replaced it and asked if he'd checked it and told him about this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that some of the content removed was in violation, but some of it was not, such as the awards section. I have made changes to the page to avoid issues of copyright violation that provide some coverage of the company by reliable, third party sources. I also have to say while this does seem to be an issue of obvious copyright infringement, only the content that was obvious should have been removed (i.e. sections with trademark symbols) per Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. That I am supposed to prove that it's not copyright infringement absolves the accuser the responsibility of actually demonstrating that it is once the claim has been questioned. This doesn't seem to be the right way to go about the process of disputing copyright infringement claims. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!)
I don't have time to do anything at the moment, but I've added the article to my watchlist because the recent additions are promotional fluffery and need to be replaced with neutral text, regardless of any copyright issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
They have been. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Acrow prop rename issue[edit]

Content dispute, should be discussed on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 22 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 call attention to an editor who has consistently rv'ed my edits to the article currently named acrow prop. In spite of a lengthy re-write and wikification, along with a lengthy justification left on the talk page about both the edit and the name change, user User:Andy_Dingley has continued in these actions with the original comment an accusation that I am acting in bad faith due to a former issue over the spelling of the term "tachymetric" (a thread you can see here). Comments since then have been dismissive.

The background starts some time ago with some edits to the Timeline of steam power and related articles. These edits concerned the historical importance of Ivan Polzunov in the overall history of steam engine design, and I was not the only editor involved (see "Polzunov" in this archive and Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine mostly here). After these edits, Andy immediately accused me of bad faith editing ("pushing your same old prejudged POV") and various comments about my worthiness as an editor (a record which speaks for itself, IMHO) and "serious concerns over your technical competence". This followed by his wikistalking me to the bombsight article and the spelling issue, which he used as further evidence of my technical incompetence (in spite of being wrong). This finally culminates on the continued RVing of the Acrow prop article.

Normally I would simply 3RR this, but in this case as I am an involved editor, I'm not sure what the proper course of action is. I wield the admin bit rarely and with extreme trepidation, so if someone more used to this sort of thing can suggest a course of action, or simply do it, please save me the trouble!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this content issue at AN?
As to Acrow prop, then it's an entirely proper and sourced article on this common piece of construction equipment, and a specific brandname that has become generic in the UK for such props. If Maury wants to write a different article on jack posts, then feel free, but it's a POV CFORK to try and hijack this pre-existing article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
For bombsights, then the spelling issue is "tachymetric" (as it appears in the Norden manual) vs. "tachometric". Tachymetric is an important term here, crucial to the function of such bombsights - they move the crosshairs of an optical sight so as to track the bomber's relative movement over the ground. This "speed tracking" function is described as being tachymetric. As tachometric is such a common term, and with a meaning so closely associated with rotation (which has no relevance to the bombsight), it is highly misleading for Maury to use it in this way, even if he manages to dredge up some ancient etymological nit-pick to support him. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As to Polzunov, then see
Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 21 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.

Nicki Minaj[edit]

User 1flyguyrob has created a section called "Female empowerment" on the Nicki Minaj article, and has added various unreliable sources that argue as if the BLP has widely supported the portrayal and interests of women. The user initially claimed that the BLP was a feminist, but has since removed this claim after I prompted him/her to do so. The section features various quotes put together to create almost an argument - that the BLP empowers and supports females. Although the BLP has commented on how females should be portrayed, the editor has chosen to represent this strongly and created a section based on original research. As to avoid WP:3RR, could an administrator look into this? I have spoke to the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (Talk:Nicki Minaj#feminist section) Jennie | 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin)1flyguyrob is a new user with only 548 edits who is still learning the ropes. This kind of content dispute belongs on the BLP noticeboard, although it appears the dispute has died down for now. You may also want to consider requesting semi-protection. Two concerns: the user is a SPA dedicated to Nicki Minaj-related articles, and they rarely use the talk page. A nice note on their talk page should help. It may also be instructive for a related WikiProject to get involved. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Assam violence[edit]

It looks like there's an ethnic edit war breaking out at 2012 Assam violence. I warned two edit warriors and blocked one for 48 hours when they continued, but I don't have the time or brainpower at the moment to look deeper into this -- any further action I might take would have to be blunt force. If anyone else can apply some admin expertise to it, that would be great. (It's already been semi-protected, but might need more than that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the User:Sirahman was deleting references and making unsourced edits. I have reverted the article to last known good state and re-added all deleted references. WBRSin (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the user I blocked for continuing the edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this here to this database. (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll crack out the discretionary sanctions there and see how that works... (my reverts to the article were of copyvios). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios by E_salehat[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:20, 22 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.

E_salehat (talk · contribs) has been adding WP:COPYVIOs to Burma. The text is directly copied from [36] starting on page 5. I've reverted and left an explanation on the user's talk page, but have not got a response and the text keeps being re-added. Could some admin take care of this? TDL (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked until we get a response of some sort indicating this user has read our copyright policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 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.

Disruptive editing by two users[edit]

Page José Benítez was recently moved from its diacriticless version with a 6-1 majority. In the RM, it was also requested that the addition to the lede "known professionally as Jose Benitez" be removed. 5 of the 6 editors in the majority supported this (the sixth did not address the point).

After the move, I removed the clause. Fyunck(click) the added it back (diff), mentioning that this type of addition is currently being discussed in an rfc. However, the rfc is discussing whether the additions should be allowed, not whether they are mandatory. Thus, the rfc discussion does not override what has been decided on the article talkpage, which is why I then reverted back. Wolbo then reverted back (diff), edit summary: "That was an RM and unrelated to this edit", apparently without checking the discussion on the article talkpage. The page has now been protected, so the change that has been decided cannot be implemented.

The RM included 3 other articles, one of which (Mario Rincón) had the same type of addition to the lede, thus the decision applied to it too. I removed the clause there too, and Wolbo added it back (diff) with the same erroneous edit summary. This page is not protected, but I will not engage in an edit war.

I request that these users are warned, and that the protected page is unprotected, so that the change that was decided on the talkpage can be implemented.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of users: Fyunck(click), Wolbo.
HandsomeFella (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are misguided, HandsomeFella. Our current WP:AT policy is very clear about it. It states in "Treatment of alternative names": "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph."
What is it we don't understand about the word "should" ?
Adding "significant" alternative renderings is mandatory. Removing them goes against current policy.
In the case of tennis players, they always compete under a name without diacritics per ITF agreement. When a person conducts most or all of their notable activities under a name that differs from their official name, then it's hard to make the case that it is not a significant alternative rendering.
5 editors voting in a RM somewhere, that doesn't change our written policy. They should be warned for disruptive editing. WP is not about outnumbering others, it is about trying to apply current consensus (as expressed in our policies). Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Just dropping the diacritic/s does not amount to "significant other name" or "significant other spelling". After all, this is not about Colonel Khadafi/Gaddaffi/Ghadafi. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does when most all the English press uses that alternate spelling. When the ITF, ATP, WTA, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympics, etc...use that alternate spelling. When players register with the governing bodies of tennis use that alternate spelling. Heck some have the own personal websites and are shown with signatures that have that alternate spelling. It is very significant and why wikipedia looks at all English sources to resolve these things. We certainly don't just chop it out of every article as though it doesn't exist. That's a disservice to our readers and not what we stand for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
HandsomeFella is right. Just dropping diacritics doesn't necessarily make for a "significant" alternative.
It is "usage" that makes an alternative significant or not. If an alternative rendering is used by the subject himself in connection with his own activities AND used by most of the sources about the topic, then how it is not significant? Why keep away that information from our readers? Don't we try to offer "complete" information? That's why our policies state that we should include them. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Significant other spelling" has nothing to do with usage. It has to do with how much the spelling differs. If the difference is only minute, and anyone reading the article is able to read the name anyway, then not only is it pointless to add that clause, it's also an insult to the reader's intelligence.
The fact that ATF requires players to register without diacritics – here we can really talk about "forcing", an expression frequently used by diacritic-haters – does not require the encyclopedia that wikipedia has the ambitions of being to adopt the same principles, as it by definition will introduce incorrect spellings.
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's your fabrication. Fact is that our current AT policy does not make any such reservations or conditions on how much a rendering needs to "differ" before we can consider it "significant" . It simply states that we should include them.
It would be ridiculous to warn editors for doing what our current policies ask us to do.
It is more and more looking as if a certain group of editors is working from an Anglophobic POV, rather than from a NPOV. First they move articles to diacritics title, and then they go on to remove all traces of anglicized spelling in the article (even when that rendering is found in almost all sources used for the article). I wonder why this is allowed to continue. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed over and over and over again; it's frustrating that MakeSense64 and Fyunck(click) continue to act as though this RfC never happened. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant. That RfC clearly didn't ask or address any question about what renderings should be mentioned in the lede or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The RfC asked "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names"; that, and more specifically the WP:STAGENAME line of argument, was comprehensively rejected. If you haven't yet been able to read the RfC on your own essay, I could provide diffs. It has also been rejected at various subsequent RMs wherever Fyunck(click) has turned up; I'd be amazed if you hadn't seen any of those, but again more diffs from RM closures &c could be provided if necessary. But that's the point? More diffs, and more consensuses, won't stop the same old claims being brought up at the next RM. There is one cause for confidence, though; we've mostly got over the problem of undiscussed moves (sometimes editing the redirect to make a move back nontrivial). It still happens occasionally but nowadays RMs are used a lot more, and that's a Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
An rfc on a single personal tennis essay is hardly groundbreaking. And the question of "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names" was ridiculous as that's not what the essay says at all. I do not support the requirement of banning of diacritics. I support using as many English sources available to determine common usage in English. Wherever you or IIO show up you quote that essay so that's why it often shows up when I'm in a conversation. I can't help what you write. As far as undiscussed moves, yes luckily the anti-anglo gang has stopped that stuff, after some warnings, at least in tennis circles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The division of labour here over the last four months has been that the leader and author of WP:TENNISNAMES User:MakeSense64 edits MOS and Talk pages, while the 2 followers Fyunck(click) and Wolbo make the actual edits to article space.
The charge of MakeSense64 that dozens of editors who rejected WP:TENNISNAMES RfC, or as shown in overwhelming support in a series RMs since, are "anglophobic" is not born out in the 1,000s of new article creations during the London 2012 Olympics, where 100s of "anglophobic" London 2012 editors worked together to create correctly spelled new BLPs for French, Spanish and East European athletes. If every London 2012 editor on en.wp is also "anglophobic" then for better or worse MakeSense64, Fyunck(click) and Wolbo need to adjust to live in the London 2012 world where foreigners have foreign names. A partial list of articles affected is below:
Note that the 100x articles affected don't include any big-ticket or visible BLPs like Björn Borg, nor does it include native-English speakers with non-ITF registration compliant names like Renée Richards. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply - The facts remain that WP:AT policy states that we should include all significant alternative renderings (as well as give them a redirect). And WP:LEDE repeats the same principle. And our policies do not state any conditions on how "different" a rendering needs to be to be considered "significant". Votes in a RfC on an essay held in my userspace do not change or replace our written policy.
Hence it makes no sense to ask that editors who apply our clearly written AT policy, should be warned for doing so. The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy.
That's what we are looking at here. If you have anything relevant to say about it, then you are welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
more reply - And we have ringleader In ictu oculi whispering as a puppetmaster into the ears of editors like HandsomeFella. He tells him what articles to put up for rm so he can stay cleaner. My bottom line is always what is the prevailing swing of things in all the English sources I can find. I just don't pull these things out of a hat. IIO and his band of brothers simply take turns removing sourced info. They should be warned for doing this and going against current wiki policy. Remember we aren't talking about removing diacritics here...not at all. We are talking about banning from wikipedia any mention of the fact that tennis players have names commonly spelled without diacritics in almost all English and tennis sources. In ictu oculi wants to ban all mention of any common English spelling of a player's name.... anywhere in an article. No matter how many English sources spell it the same way, no matter if the player, while in English speaking countries, spells or signs their own name without diacritics, In ictu oculi wants that information excised from an article. I don't feel that's right so I stand up for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64, looking through the box above "The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy." will require notification of 20 editors who have attempted to revert these ledes (in each case Fyunck and Wolbo's ledes remain on top) that they are being "warned" by you at ANI. Do you wish to notify them all of them with ANI notices? If so the notifications should probably extend outside the 20 editors to include editors who reverted these ledes when applied outside tennis. I have already left a heads up on Joy(Shallot)'s Talk page, as I expected this is where you would go. Do you intend to notify the other 19? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ha, speak of the devil. Hello Joy! In ictu oculi (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Sigh. It seems that an uninvolved admin will need to finally block or topic-ban Fyunck(click) to prevent their advocacy against diacritics, which is as unrelenting as it is bizarre. The violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, ... is quite clear by now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - Joy, if you're proposing a specific edit-ban on Fyunck for "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" type ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) changed wording from "topic block" to "specific edit-ban" to reflect Koertefa's comment below. Also added section divider In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support – and that goes for Wolbo and MakeSense64 too. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose for reasons stated below. IIO is canvassing again. LittleBen (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations. But this proposal would ban involvement in titling, which is surely a more significant matter. The titles for sports related articles should follow the conventions of sports reference works, which are not necessarily the same as those of the subject's native language. Kauffner (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations" is a support. What Joy proposed was open-ended and probably would affect titles, but what myself and Handsome fella support is that "An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations" i.e. "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" type ledes. The question is whether admins support these ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

  • Comment - Just to show how ridiculous this is becoming. Last year in a broad RfC Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, people like @bobrayner and @Handsomefella were among the editors who voted in Support of a proposal that contained this wording: "Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited." . Now they are here to argue the case that some editors should be warned or banned for doing so. Enough said. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
And in turn you ironically fail to see the difference between people engaging in an exchange of ideas and arguments at an RfC, and incessant disruptive editing to have their way, with little regard for anything else, for months or even years. Frankly, the latter is why the more recent RfC was so slanted towards more support for diacritics - because some of the people who so vehemently oppose them appear to be jerks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you give an example of the "incessant disruptive editing" you are talking about? It's nice to see that you would put my essay on a par with a major guideline page, but you make it look as if the RfC on my essay was a "more recent" RfC on diacritics. That's quite a stretch. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense, what is your definition of "significant other spelling"? I mean, if there are significant other spellings, there must be insignificant ones – right? I'm not referring to spelling mistakes, to be clear. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to move in circles, I already addressed that point in my earlier response to you. And you recently voted in "Support" of a proposal that made it depend on usage in our sources. So I just happen to agree with your definition of "significant" when it comes to alternative renderings. Also remember that wp does not avoid "wrong spellings" as long as they are common. It may even be used as the title if the "wrong" spelling is most common. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also find it ridiculous to mention/emphasize the diacritics-stripped versions of names, in cases when it is obvious to everybody how to remove the diacritics (as it was mentioned by HandsomeFella in the cases of "José Benítez" / "Jose Benitez" and "Mario Rincón" / "Mario Rincon"). On the other hand, it might be too harsh to topic-ban the two users just for that (unless they violate other guidelines). A clear-cut Wikipedia policy/guideline would be the long-term solution to this kind of problems. Of course, I also understand that it is very hard to reach a consensus in this question. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@Koertafa, Hi. I took Joy's comment (Joy, correct me) to mean that the minimum would be a specific-edit-ban on Fyunck's 100x "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" ledes that have been edit-warred onto the top of 100x BLPs, immediately reverting 20 other editors (yes including myself several times, and yourself once). Would you support a targeted and specific edit-ban limited purely to edit-warring these 100x edits back on top? We need to focus as this is already getting WP:TLDR, and if this closes it may well be taken as a green light from ANI to do this to up to 1,000x non-anglo tennis BLPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply - The point is not to show how to remove diacritics. The point has always been to mention it when the person in question conducted most (if not all) his activities under an alternative rendering of his name, and is usually found as such in sources. That is not stupid information.
Oh, please, spare us the argument how it's all just a simple content dispute. If it was, then it would be legitimate to edit-war about putting five different renderings of Dr. Dre in that article's lead section. It's not legitimate, it's disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If you know nothing about tennis, then how are you so sure that Mario Rincón and Mario Rincon are the same person? Yes, it is likely, but it is not guaranteed. We have a clear-cut policy that we should mention significant alternative names. This and other arguments have been brought up many times, but the group of editors who is here to vote that some people should be banned, do never address such points, they don't answer questions. Even when you bring up a workable phrasing from a RfC where they voted Support, they have no comments. These editors should be warned for stonewalling, it is their behavior that should be looked into.
Some editors have objected on the basis of WP:OPENPARA. But our WP:AT policy does not say that alternatives should be included in the opening paragraph, it says they should be in the WP:LEDE , so it can also be at the bottom of the lede. Maybe that would be a workable compromise. Here is an example where alternative renderings are mentioned at the end of lede, on the basis of what appears in the credits for the articles, and even includes some common "incorrect" spellings: Tesshō Genda. That's how it should be if different renderings are common in English-language sources. We try to inform our readers, don't we? And including all relevant information, inevitable means that some of the information will be obvious or appear unnecessary for some informed readers. That doesn't need to insult their intelligence. Do you always feel insulted when you read something that is obvious to you? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice to any admin who cares to look: once again two editors are cutting up the discussion by inserting their comments in the middle or above other people's replies, making it more difficult to read. Why is that allowed to continue despite multiple warnings? This kind of disruptions goes on and on, always pushing the envelope. What does it take to enter this "anything goes club"? Does starting a certain number of articles put editors in a different league? Or what is going on? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: while I was writing this, @IIO was busy urging others to "To put new text under old text" in this diff [37] and then quickly removed it [38]. That's all "part of how it goes" with IIO, and that's the man who is arguing that others should be banned or blocked here. Will there ever come an end to all such hypocrisy? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64. The proposal above is a specific edit-limit on Fyunck making ""Björn Borg, professionally known as Bjorn Borg" type ledes in foreign living person's biographies. There is no proposal to ban or block anyone from making sensible edits. You are free to register oppose if you support such edits to foreign living person's biographies. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That makes no sense, because an RfC on what to do with the mention of alternative renderings in the lede is still ongoing. We cannot change policy by voting here on ANI. All we have is this: two articles were brought on the table, in which two editors made edits and a few other editors reverted these edits. 3RR was not violated. We should look into both groups and ask ourselves who was backed by policy or not. I have answered that question already and I have not seen anybody deny or refute it so far. Our current WP:AT and WP:LEDE mandate the inclusion of significant alternative renderings in the lede. Whether we like it or not.
We should also ask the opposite question: do we have any current policy that mandates the removal of such information in the lede, if it is properly sourced by the cites used for the article? If not, then things do not look good for the complaining editors here.
Changing our policies with regards to alternative renderings in the lede, that has to be done through consensus-building on the appropriate pages. I just made yet another proposal earlier today, which I believe to be most reasonable for everyone involved: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Another_attempt_to_find_a_working_compromise. As always people are welcome to weigh in. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The core question of the dispute is: when does a common misspelling turn into a significant alternative name. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@Agathoclea, absolutely correct. However for better or worse now we are here, and there is a proposal for a specific remedy on the reported "incident", slow-burn edit warring by 1 editor against 20 editors to have his lede always on top of 100x BLPs. The fact that the always-on-top-edit is also "ridiculous" (to quote User:Resolute) is secondary here to the edit always being on top of 100x BLPs. Normal editing dialogue has evidently failed over 100x BLPs and it could conceivably spread to 1000x BLPs if it receives ANI blessing, even if it is blessing by WP:TLDR. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but such questions are not decided on ANI. ANI looks into the reported "incident" if there is one. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense, it would be good if you could declare in your own words what your opinion of a "significant other spelling" is. Without a definition, a "significant other spelling" would be the same as "any other spelling" (except for clear spelling mistakes), would it not? Try not to avoid the issue. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Handsome old chap, does it matter? Even if 1 editor was adding sensible stuff and 20 editors were adding nutty stuff and 1 editor was always edit-warring his sensible edit on top in 100x BLPs it would still be a slow-burn edit war against consensus. We don't need to relive WP:TENNISNAMES RfC yet again we just need to shut up and maybe a passing admin will look at the green box. (meanwhile I'm off to make a WP:POINTY vandalism of "Chloë Grace Moretz, known in USA Today as Chloe Grace Moretz..." ;) ) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • HandsomeFella, why don't you declare in your own words what your opinion of what is NOT a "significant other spelling"? It is surely better to provide a little more than enough information than not enough, isn't it? Don't you guys have anything better to do than edit war over what is a relatively trivial issue? "They are too kind to Wikipedia users" is not a reason for asking that editors be blocked. IIO: adding diacritics to titles wherever possible, even if you are well aware that diacritics are not English and not common usage (it's surely fair to say that a majority of English Wikipedia users cannot read, write, pronounce, or remember complex diacritics, so it's obvious that you are making Wikipedia less user friendly and less accessible), refusing to stop edit warring over this, and gathering mobs of cronies to pick off one-by-one people who dislike gratuitous over-use of diacritics, is surely a much stronger reason for having an editor blocked. Enough, already.
  • The article gets only about 30 pageviews a day—it's very much a minor article, and virtually all searches are for the name without diacritics. Did you bother to research how major, authoritative English sources like Time, UCSB, and Aspen spell the name, and how people spell their own names in English on Facebook and LinkedIn? Do you really think this issue is worth a fight to the death? Wikipedia should be a place that tolerates a little diversity, not a place where mobs rule (and completely disregard usability and other Wikipedia guidelines). LittleBen (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
LittleBenW, this is ANI, not WP:TENNISNAMES REDUX. There is a specific proposal to restrict Fyunck from specific edits to 100x specific living person's biographies (compare Zoë Baird). If you agree with Fyunck's ledes then oppose the restriction. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • IIO, you specifically cited Zoë Baird with diacritics as being the correct name. I have presented several authoritative sources above that suggest that the name with diacritics is most likely wrong. Do you have any reputable sources that show that the name with diacritics is both correct (suitable for an article title), more common, and more recognizable than the name without diacritics? If not, then how about apologizing? Otherwise it will appear that you are so fixated on adding diacritics to peoples' names that you don't bother to do adequate research and so are willfully adding false information to Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Havebased123[edit]

User:Havebased123 is disrupting Wikipedia through a number of IP addresses. Earlier evidence that the addresses are his can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Havebased123/Archive (which was closed without any action, because no blockable offenses had happened at the time and because IP adresses and acounts are not linked through checkuser anyway).

Now, User: has been blocked for repeatedly removing an AfD template from an article created by Havebased123, and for leaving a fake "you are blocked" message at another user's talk page ([39]) and otherwise vandalizing pages ([40]). The same behaviour was shown by User: and User: (e.g. this).

Page protection can help a bit here, but considering that this has now spread to different user talk pages as well, some stronger action may be needed. I am involved here (as the AfD nominator), but if other people feel that WP:DUCK indeed applies here, then they can decide what action may be the most effective and warranted here. Fram (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

and now add (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reported for duty. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • When filing the SPI listed above, I learned there are two IP ranges, both of which resolve to Poland. There is persistent abuse of multiple accounts for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia, in particular the following articles: Curiosity rover, Mars Science Laboratory, the currently listed for AfD article, Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission, as well as the previously listed article(s), MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012 (this was only the first of multiple pages created). The editor has been approached, then warned [41] with the only result being talk page blanking and static. Then several editors reversed tactics and tried rewards, barnstarring for good behavior, and compromise [42]. Although we did manage to achieve a few edit summaries, the prevention of further disruption to the same articles was not accomplished. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 04:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
user Havebased123, a WP:Single-purpose account, not just ignores feedback, but deletes article maintenance tags as well as warning tags. He even blanked his talk page 9 times: [43]. Even while assuming good faith, after witnessing his complete refusal to communicate, his persistent unexplained blankings, reverts --and lately vandalism as explained above-- user Havebased123 has more than demonstrated his incompetency to grasp Wikipedia's essence: a collaborative endeavour. I doubt that his problemm is limited to a simple WP:ownership, as he defies all involved editors or their entries, regardless of the quality of their contribution. I sadly doubt a 48h block to his ISP addresses will enlighten him. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'Wikipedians who fulfill the COI+ agreements' category[edit]

There is no existing category named:

Wikipedians who fulfill the COI+ agreements

However, there are users who are members of that category. This does not make sense to me. What is/ are the "Conflict of Interest PLUS" agreement(s)? Is there a category for Wikipedians who do NOT fulfill conflict of interest requirements? That is not stated with facetious or rhetorical intent. Is there a specific Conflict of Interest agreement? Perhaps there is. Are there also secondary agreements, designated as Conflict of Interest PLUS agreements, or rather, "COI+ agreements"?

I don't have any personal interest in the resolution of this matter, nor does it effect anyone near or dear to me. I am just pointing it out, so someone can look into it, and remedy the situation as most appropriate, and in the most expeditious manner. --FeralOink (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COI+, anyhow. If you're concerned, create the category, and link the essay. WilyD 10:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I have BOLDly created a page for the category. WikiPuppies bark dig 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced comments on Tannenbaum[edit]

No action warranted. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 22 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.

Recently, someone come to me on IRC, claiming that a comment had been added the the above page as an attack. After investigating, I found (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had posted this. Can I request that the IP be blocked - the person seemed quite upset at the comment. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing anything in that edit that resembles an attack or vandalism. What exactly is the problem? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't see an attack, but I do see vandalism - that addition is a redlink, presumably concerning a non-notable living person, which may or may not be accurate and seems to me to fit the juvenile pattern of "adding something silly about someone I know." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't even see the "silly" or "vandalism". Yes, someone added a redlink of what's probably the name of someone they know. But stating that someone is an expert in blah medical specialty is, if anything, peacocking, not "something silly" (which would, in my mind, be something like "So-and-so, U.S. expert on eating potato chips"). Unless there's something going on here that I'm completely missing (in which case, I wish Mdann could explain why this content is offensive), someone in good faith added a redlink saying a (probably non-notable) person was a medical expert and...was reverted as a vandal and warned? That edit was not vandalism and should not have been treated as such. Calling someone who means well a vandal like this is perhaps why we have a reputation as such a newbie-hating website. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I was advised by another user to bring it up here to see what people thought. Feel free to close if you think no action is needed. Mdann52 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, he was only issued a level 1 warning. A block in this scenario should be after multiple warnings. Electric Catfish 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What Electriccatfish and the others say. Repeated warnings, then (probably) a quick trip to WP:AIV. Will close this. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 22 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.

Unrequited vandalism[edit]

Blocked for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 22 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. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly making disruptive edits on Once Upon a Time (season 2) after numerous warnings. Purposed block. LiamNolan24 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hallmark disruptive editing: against consensus, no talk page discussion, unproductive. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 22 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.

IjonTichyIjonTichy - The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

Editor topic banned by TParis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 23 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.

Can an uninvolved admin look at the situation at Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement?

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be disruptive at The Zeitgeist Movement by edit warring and reverting the contributions of other editors, very often with reasons not based on policy, guidelines and also reasons which aren't always articulated or are vague. The editor also appears to frequently avoid addressing specific questions and issues and goes instead on side tangents in relation to the topic and makes comments that can only be described as bizarre and irrelevant. For example [44]:

"And, of course, another, and important, reason to include the link is that it discusses ideas from a female and a feminist perspective. Given that almost all of the authors of our secondary and primary resources on TZM, as well as the majority of WP editors (including, it seems, the majority, if not all, of the currently-active editors on the TZM article) may be males. Given that many WP readers are females, it would be probably refreshing for them to browse our article on Brown and perhaps even read her article ('Does work really work'). [BTW my wife liked Brown's work. Admittedly not a very scientific experiment since it is based on a single data point...] Regards"

Which is followed by a long tangent about statistics about the number of male editors. As another example, here is a relevant exchange:

  • Wall of text [45]
  • direct question from Darkness shines [46]
  • Wall of text [47]
  • Succinct points by Darkness and Bbb23 [48]
  • Wall of text [49]

In the rather length pastes of text I don't see any reliable sources to back up the position of IjonTichyIjonTichy. He now appears to be engaging in ad hominem personal attacks against editors on their talk pages: [50] (bizarrely it appears he expects the editor read "tens of hours of TZM documentary films, tens of hours of TZM-produced lectures"), also see [51]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will comment more fully later if required (I have to go out), but can I add that this is yet another example of a long-standing issue regarding IjonTichyIjonTichy's disrupltive behaviour. He seems incapable of comprehending wikipedia policies - or alternatively, comprehends them, but chooses to ignore them in pursuit of his endless promotion of the movement he is involved with. Either way, he has done far too much damage for far too long, and in my opinion needs to be blocked indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have suggested a topic ban but it seems this is the only topic area he edits in. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest an indefinite block because, though warned over and over, no change in behavior has followed. He is like an A.I. machine that takes in information and then uses that negatively in a black comedy of wiki-lawyering. Sorry, but that is the pattern. Though he seems 'friendly' at times, he is actually deadly with his single minded promotion advocacy of Venus Project/Zeitgeist. That is maybe understandable because he advocates for them, but he is not a neutral editor, he is using Wikipedia like a blog for his thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Having been in a similar situation while writing about a fringe movement, the editors working on this article have my sympathy. That being said, ITIT's writings are actually pretty entertaining, to me at least. Anyway, I think a topic ban might be an Ok solution. If this is the only topic he cares about, it would more or less have the same result as a block, and be easier to get support for. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I never really got involved in the TZM article, but over at Technological unemployment ITIT seemed to want it to have lengthy essays in support of TZM. There were copyvio problems at one point in the past, but I think ITIT has already learned that lesson. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Also worth mentioning is that he as a member of the movement has a wp:coi. I've hoped that his membership of the movement could benefit of the article, under the assumption that IjonTichyIjonTichy will actually know more about the movement and its positions and be able to point us to reliable sources. However, this hasn't happened. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that making it out to be a COI issue might be stretching things a little. He is a supporter of a political movement, but so are a large number of Wikipedia contributors. Do we describe a supported of the Democratic Party editing an article on Romney, or a Republican making edits regarding Obama as having a COI? Not as far as I'm aware - and the fact that IjonTichyIjonTichy is a supporter of a smaller, fringe movement shouldn't alter the principle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are right, it's rather an issue of a bias which he is unable to overcome and hence rather a question of wp:competence that cp:coi. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by uninvolved Jorgath[edit]

I propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be placed under an indefinite topic ban from mainspace edits regarding the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed. ITIT is free to edit talk pages in that area, provided he follows all other policies of course. I'm basing this off of the model we use for notable people who wish to contribute to their own article - they generally can request edits on the talk page, but not edit it themselves. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per my comments above. The only way this is worse than a topic ban is if sock/meat puppetry becomes involved. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If he is going to fill talk pages with interminable sermons, rants and this-because-of-that-because-of-the-other synthesis and OR, that would achieve nothing beyond pissing off other contributors even more. If TZM want to find someone to represent their interests regarding our article on them (an idea that many other TZM supporters seem not to have grasped), they should be able to find someone less clueless and verbose. If they can't, it is their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if he does, that's where other policies and guidelines come in. Like WP:TPG, for instance. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
...Which are the very policies his latest interminable screeds are in violation of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm...How about this addition: "ITIT is also placed under heightened scrutiny in regards to talk-page edits in this topic area, and faces escalating blocks for any disruption or disregard of policy in such edits." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rants and screeds cannot help but foul up the talk pages he trolls. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Binksternet; if you're gong to topic ban him, include discussing the topic, on article and user talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal by IRWolfie-[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Topic ban enacted--v/r - TP 01:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban IjonTichyIjonTichy from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support As nom. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as second choice. I'd prefer the one I proposed over this, but I'd prefer this over doing nothing. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but wider ban, more severe. Editor is far too deeply involved in the Z movement, cannot think independently, cannot be of any use to the encyclopedia except as an example.