Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive773

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request ban of User:AndyTheGrump[edit]

There's a consensus that no administrative action should occur here, and a couple admins have recommended the opening of an RFC/U. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 18 October 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.

Respected senior contributors,

Highly abusive language on Talk page and AFD page without any provocation

Since last 4 days, i am facing abuses on talk page and AFD page. I have shown my utmost calm and presented my points in the most decent possible way but the abuses continued. The latest comment made by him on AFD page is direct, highly derogatory and insulting where he called me an idiot.

1. The first time he abused by using the word bullshit . I Chose to ignore it, maintained my calm, tried to establish the notability of article by clearing his concerns.
2. Then he again used the word More garbage
I requested him to use a decent language by saying - Words like Garbage, Bullshit and nonstop warnings, i would request you to use a decent language.
3. But instead of correcting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump again abused me by saying that heard enough bullshit from you.
4. Then he nominated Ujjwal Patni for deletion. When i replied him point to point on AFD page things crossed all the limits and he abused by calling me an idiot. This is a serious personal attack on a public forum. I request for a straightforward ban on him for this abuse.

I am not competent technically to understand pagelink or diff link, to lodge complaint at appropriate forum or to respond properly to such complaints. Just now i got a sock puppetry case warning as a reward by them. I would request senior contributors to help me and investigate the AFD page. If i am at fault ban me, and if Andythegrump is at fault then ban him. Pls don't ignore this request citing any procedural error or my technical incompetence.

The AFD page also shows my Serious concern. I would prefer not to mention it here. Senior contributors may judge on that. I am not able to add a single word in last months. Two contributors revert every citation within seconds, abuse, give different type of warnings and attack. last two hours edit history of Ujjwal Patni reveals everything. Now most of the vital points of the article have been removed due to unexplained reasons. I must get a fair chance to work on the article without getting abused and a ban on him. Showed courage to lodge a complaint here because I respect the policy of WP:BOLD.

Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The blind leading the blind. As usual AndyTheGrump is correct in his assessment of an article and almost completely deficient in manners. Again it involves a likely COI editor who is barely acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines and markup, who has turned that AfD into a headache--I have closed it per SNOW, since there wasn't a chance in hell that it would end in keep. The reporting user is asked to take the time to read up on our guidelines for notability; I will let other admins decide on whether AndyTheGrump needs to be admonished or blocked for their various insults. There will be no ban; I think that's clear. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that the article concerned has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjwal Patni. Unsurprisingly, since we have had months of discussion with this contributor, who has singularly failed to comprehend the need for proper third-party reliable sourcing, and insisted on posting the same questionable puffery time after time after time... As the talk page is no longer visible to me, I've no idea what the 'serious concern' was, unless it was the repeated claim that I am a sockpuppet of User:Rhode Island Red, who has had the misfortune to have had to deal with this nonsense even longer than I have. Yes, I used phrases like 'bullshit' and 'garbage', because that was what we were dealing with - a severe case of fingers-in-the-ears I-don't-want-to-hear-that tendentious editing that would try the patience of a saint (which I freely acknowledge I'm not...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c)Calling another user an idiot [1] is completely out of bounds. Calling bullshit garbage sources "bullshit" and "garbage" is not an issue; however it IS extremely unlikey to do anything convince the editors promoting the bullshit garbage sourcing to begin producing sources that are not bullshit and garbage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The only thing I can see wrong with Andy's actions was the "idiot" remark. If he didn't want to talk about it anymore the simple solution is too.... wait for it... stop talking. Referring to sources as bullshit and garbage was, as Drmies points put, an accurate description. It also seems screamingly obvious that in response to what the reporting user perceived as a coordinated attack they recruited/created some help for their own side in the form of User:Anay jain. So, Andy needs to stop making it personal and Mahaveerji needs to read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not me, Beeblebrox, though I don't disagree. BTW, no thread of this kind will make Andy change his tune, I think. But I don't like civility blocks to begin with. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to where you said he was correct in his assessment but deficient in manners. If he hadn't turned around and called the other user an idiot I would see nothing whatsoever wrong in his actions. I also have to agree that this thread is unlikely to change that and an outright ban is a near impossibility. If someone wanted to do the legwork to open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyTheGrump that would be the proper way to address the more involved issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. I agree with you on all points. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, on the now-deleted article talkpage Andy began a response with "Listen dickhead...", which may be straining the bounds of what is tolerable around here these days. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Tarc, if you want to make a case, I guess we can restore the talk page for the time being. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You know my stance on civility (i.e. I find this sort of thing silly and inconsequential), was just throwing that out there for discussion . If you want to undelete the talk page temporarily to see, feel free...I'd left the window open awhile ago about to get a diff, but after a bit of afk, refreshed to see it was gone already. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
None of this would justify a ban. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
No ban. Perhaps a boomerang about competency for the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Without yet getting in the specifics of what solution is appropriate in this case, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Using it as your personal playground to be a bully in is not a simple matter "civility" as in tea, crumpets, and how you hold your pinky but the destruction of a working environment. --Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I don't have all that much to add, I just wanted to voice my support of the above statement. --Conti| 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
What he said. --Jayron32 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI. It puzzles me why there are some users who have been brought here for this sort of thing again and again yet none of those who are upset by it ever take the next step of opening a user RFC. That is the option in between ANI and arbitration. My only guess as to why it is not used in these cases is that it it requires discussion with the subject rather than just asking for someone else to impose sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 17 October 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.
(edit conflict) WP:Civility states that it is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  The problem here is not discussion or policies, it is enablers of incivility.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary:

  • Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia
  • Per the consenus above, the reported behavior may be unacceptable but it's not an ANI issue, some one should file an RFC/U.
  • Per the current consensus at the Civility RFC no one should act should act as "self appointed civility police."Nobody Ent 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh give me a fucking break. One minute admin is forcing their hand down editor throats, ripping their guts out and spilling them all over the place with sanctions for just arguing endlessly, but we don't have civility police? That is the stupiest thing I have heard. Of course we don't have civility police...and admin ARE NOT just janitors. And again, ANI does not require a consensus for admin to intervene.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


Yeah, I think a RfC/U is the best way forward. He may be openly grumpy, but I feel that sometimes he's needlessly aggressive to other editors who are working completely in good faith. It's a shame, because I know he's acting in good faith too. Beware the tendency to support people because it appears that people oppose them for whatever reason (incivility, minority opinions, what have you); that sort of group behaviour has, in the past, allowed serious harassment to go on unresolved because even arbitrators are unwilling to take action. Sceptre (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak to all past situations, but in this particular case the editor that Andy was in a dispute with did not appear to be acting in good faith. A reasonable assessment is that the other editor was using multiple SPA sock accounts to create a blatantly puffery-laden BLP on a non-notable subject, and then antagonizing other editors by throwing out accusations of collusion/conspiracy/suppression, etc on the Talk page. I was also the target of the SPA/sock's wrath. When the other editor realized that the bio was being considered for deletion (and it ultimately was deleted), he simply started attacking other editors, Andy included. That situation may not justify incivility, but the incivility was clearly provoked and it was by far the lesser of the two evils. While Andy may live up to his name (i.e. grumpy) from time to time, crucifying him in an admin action would serve no purpose other than to curtail a productive editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see anything actionable here. Just a gentle word that he should be the better man and rise above the provocation should suffice. Sceptre (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparent competence issue, continued; proposed block[edit]

I recently noted concern about an editor whose editing skills were seriously lacking and who had refused to engage on his or any article Talk page. The thread is archived here. It was generally agreed that the edits were disruptive, and the editor unresponsive, but that in light of the editor's apparent good faith we should tread lightly, offer help and hope that things turned for the better. I think that was the right approach, but it appears that it's not working - since then, the editor (Davebrayfb) has continued his disruptive editing, most recently to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. Here. Perhaps one of his last six or so edits has survived reversion. Anyhow I'm not sure that the soft approach is going to work. I'm not adamant about a block but I think now that one is warranted and hereby propose one, something at least long enough to get his attention. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? You are actually asking for a block (with no time mentioned I suppose you want an idef block) that is not vandalism related but you don't show any diffs? You just want us to research through a discussion when even with diffs admin doesn't block for disruption?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Note the word "continued" in the section title. Detailed diffs were given in the original report only a few days ago, but such is the turnover speed at this board, it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Apparent_competence_issue, as the OP has already pointed out in the second sentence of the report. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm breaking kayfabe here, but this one item from the school teacher's super-secret play-book:
What teacher says What teacher means What child hears
You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. You are a bad person.
Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it. You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way. Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we recruiting editors from elementary school now? Why does WP waste its time trying to rehabilitate these types of editors? If all the energy expended on them had been turned to creating article content, we'd have ten times as many FAs than we do now and one-tenth the editor attrition. I've looked over his edits, and JohnInDC has had the patience of Job. Block the account, keep an eye out for his or her return, and move on. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand a little on Tom's comment, I have made repeated, friendly and patient efforts on the editor's Talk page to guide them toward more constructive editing practices (starting here.) I've also templated him occasionally to set up a proper AIV case in the event he got worse fast. None of my efforts garnered more than vague and non-responsive responses. (He has edited his own Talk page 6 times, not one entry longer than a sentence, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) The prior go-round here at ANI ended, as I said, with a general consensus that the editor's work was in fact disruptive, but probably in good faith, and that additional efforts should be made to engage them. Kudpung posted a friendly plea on the editor's page (diff here) suggesting the editor avail themselves of the many mechanisms for learning how to edit well, and observing that a block might result if they didn't. Here at ANI, Kudpung said that we should wait to see if there was any reaction. Davebrayfb did not respond to Kudpung's plea, and continued the same sort of disruptive editing he had been engaged in before. (I supplied one good diff above.) With all that as prologue, I have returned to suggest that persuasion and discussion, having consistently failed to produce any change in this editor's behavior, are not an effective approach and that an attention-getting block (or indef, whatever the collective wisdom counsels) is required. All prior disruptive diffs are listed at the linked entry above; I did not reproduce them here because this page seems to collect a good bit of clutter as it is, but of course would be happy to repost them if it would be more convenient. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've blocked this editor for 24 hours for disruption. If somebody nicer than me felt like reaching out to them and pointing them to some areas for improvement, that would be great. --John (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I completely take Shirt58's point above about how to get the best from people. But looking at the interactions so far I do think JohnInDC has made heroic efforts thus far to adopt just that approach. Sadly the apparent lack of competence may simply mean we are on a hiding to nothing here. Good (sadly regrettable but inevitable) block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The block has expired, he's begun to edit again, and I'm commenting pretty much just to keep the posting from getting archived before we get a sense of whether he's going to show any improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Zack of wikipediawriters.com"[edit]

According to s.p.a. User:Sharadha Bain, User:Faustus37 is somebody called "Zack at wikipediawriters.com" and was paid to write the puff piece Jason Shulman diff. The tone of the complaint leads me to suspect that the client didn't realize what a breach of ethics they have paid for, and just wants to know why we rejected their advertisement. Meanwhile, wikipediawriters.com uses the trademarks of Wikipedia to pimp themselves out shamelessly. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A reminder that it would be unethical to suggest that we DDoS them, but it should be totally fine for the legal department to scare them, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Legal is now aware of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles like Danielle Babb are curious. The notability there is marginal, to say the most. Resolute 01:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is with wikipediawriters.org more than with this one writer of theirs, who's also been a good content contributor for us. I think he is (or was) just one of their many contractors and I suspect he was paid a lot less than what wikipediawriters.org received for his work. I suggest we tell this guy to do no more paid editing and tell him he's welcome to keep contributing useful content.
In the meantime, we need to figure out ways to better deal with wikipediawriters.org and similar organizations.
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Gregory Kohs is unpopular here for many reasons I won't go into. (If you're interested in the backstory, search Wikipedia for his name, MyWikiBiz and Centiare to find many megabytes worth of discussions, noticeboard threads, etc.; go to wikipediareview.com and wikipediocracy.com for still more megabytes of his side of the story).
At one point, he proposed to put paid articles in MediaWiki format on his own wiki with GFDL (what we used before CC-BY-SA) licensing for reuse by Wikipedia. This gave Wikipedia editors a ready source of pre-written articles they could then move over to Wikipedia if they met our criteria. After a several subsequent years dealing with spam and paid editing, I've come to realize in retrospect this was a pretty good idea for all parties; certainly better than all the covert stuff we have now. There's so much animus nowadays between Kohs and Wikipedia, however, that I don't see this ever happening, at least with his firm.
I bring this up not to rehash (or rebash) Gregory Kohs' activities but because I think the underlying concept is worth further thought.
Paid editing on Wikipedia is sort of like the US' illegal immigration problem. Exposure on Wikipedia is worth so much money that material will find its way here one way or the other ("show me a 15' border fence and I'll show you a 17' ladder"). Is there a way we can at least partially triage or channel it in an intelligent way?
--A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, George I of Great Britain and Acrocanthosaurus and Cogan House Covered Bridge all became well written without a single cent changing hands. Could someone explain that to me? --Jayron32 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I assure you I am not "Zack of wikipediawriters.com." Faustus37 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
These articles were also developed without a single cent changing hands; I appreciate the work done on them. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 04:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Um, our friend and my accuser User:Sharadha Bain has contributed a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia. TWO. I'm over 5,500 edits at this point going back a good 7 years plus now. I've created 200+ articles in that time, mainly dealing with the State of Idaho. The vast majority of my edits were made in an altruistic sense. Try to prove otherwise. Yes, I have written Wikipedia articles for pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I remind you COI does not prohibit that practice and never has, provided said articles do not conflict with well-established notability standards. I firmly believe nothing I have ever written here violates either principle, especially in light of WP:NOTPAPER. Believe me, I've rejected many more paid article requests than I've accepted based on standards I believe acceptable here. Evidently others do not share my inclusionist view. Well, such is life. Frankly it's only because of this CNet article that the witch hunt is on in earnest. So the game is up, and the exclusionists have won. Do what you will. Faustus37 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If you fancy that the only reason anyone's concerned about the burgeoning of hired guns is a CNet article, you've come very late to the game; there've been a whopping lot of us very unhappy about this syndrome for years now, something that pops up at AfD on an increasing basis. That being said, perhaps you could turn the experience you laud into a better grasp of WP:AGF -- casting our very legitimate concern over articles written solely because mercenaries are paid to do so in deletionist/inclusionist terms is a smokescreen at level best. You would be a great deal better served by a sober explanation of why you feel your conduct is okay than by aggressive hostility that anyone dare question you. Ravenswing 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing aggressive about my comments. I'm a firm disciple of Realpolitik. Argue the point, not the person. Question my good faith all you want. Even with clients I support (and I don't support many), I only guarantee my work for a week online. This is made very clear to them from the outset. I'm very well aware the purists were who they were long, long before the aforementioned CNet article. Frankly 95 percent of the "hired guns" you reference are stupid. They guarantee everything. I guarantee next to nothing. I know the jackals of the Wikipedia culture. But that begs the question, why the hell is it really that important? Most thinking people already know Wikipedia is a guide to the source and not the source itself. It's not like we're going to crash the Internet here. So what if the Muse is paid to impart knowledge? Is a bio of someone like Jason Shulman really going to detract from a bio of Gandhi? Really? REALLY? Even today American high school students cite Wikipedia as a source at their own peril ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Perhaps its time to take COI back to the community to see if there is now WP:consensus to add a clear prohibition of paid editing - Wikipedia's reputation , such as it is, is being undermined by multiple reports of paid and COI editing in the press. Recently as I have understood, there is a rise in opposition to such editing. WP:RFC - Banning any user that is cited as a paid editor and implementing WP:Flagged revisions to end the defaming of living people via the project will help massively to raise the projects reputation as a respectable source reporter.. Youreallycan 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Without further ado, let's test how that would work with a live example: Sidel.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Previously deleted promotional article, easy, speedily re delete and block/ban the re creator indefinitely would be my interpretation of the NPOV Wiki project position. Youreallycan 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
A company with €1.350 billion in revenue is absolutely notable even by German wikipedia standards (which are far stricter than ours for companies). Wikipedia always had poor coverage of notable companies (and was always full spam of non-notable ones like many IT start-ups.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) YRC, I am on your side regarding the defence of integrity of the Wikipedia project against commercial exploitation. I'd personally like to see that article deleted as an obvious "created for financial gain" reasons. But the article is well-referenced, would easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and would pass a WP:AfD nomination. My apologies for resorting to cliches, but "the genie has been let out of bottle a long while ago" and "Wikipedia is a victim of its own success" and so on. Like it or not, I think we just have to accept that acceptable articles might be created for reasons we don't like.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This has also been discussed at Jimbo's talk page, for what it's worth. Graham87 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Our COI policy document is poorly written. It doesn't make the distinction between the COI, which exists whenever an editor is editing in a topic area that they or their employer make money from (which is of course very common), and problematic actions potentially caused by the COI, which is an independent issue. This lack of distinction caused me a lot of grief recently. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid writing is not prohibited, regardless of how much Jimbo dislikes it. An RFC was closed in July with, in part, this summary: Overall conclusion: Nothing in Wikipedia's best practices concerning conflict of interest can be said to have changed as a result of this discussion. The situation therefore remains as it was before: roughly, that conflict of interest editing is "discouraged" (although it remains unclear exactly what it is that is being discouraged and what form the discouragement is supposed to take); that editors with affiliations are encouraged to be open about them, and also to avoid making potentially controversial edits in the relevant area without prior approval; and that we don't post information about the identities of other editors (WP:OUTING). Nobody Ent 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Making paid editing forbidden would also create a nightmare of enforcement and cause even more witchhunts at SPI, which is already buried. The solution is management, not barring. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This "discouragement" reminds me a lot of the history of domain names. Everyone said at first that in order to register a .com you had to have some kind of working company, not just be squatting, etc., in order to keep the riffraff out --- meanwhile some well connected people bought up the good stuff and made millions. I would predict that the people ignoring your AN/I process are the ones who will be making the big money here; some of the people waiting to see what consensus is will be will end up working for them for peanuts. I would like to see you encourage a fairer, more open set of standards to encourage a free market and more equal opportunity for all editors. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Re to Youreallycan of 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, by all means, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sneak every last marginal policy that has been opposed in with this irritation. Nothing says cabal like omnibussing lots of partial fixes through for a minor complaint. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree on the principle that paid editing is at least marginally COI. But I will agree to the point that if a paid article is clearly a positive contribution, then why does it matter that it was COI? I don't like it myself, but witchhunts and outing aside, there's no way to enforce any policy on paid editing.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind, COI editing is not against policy. It never will be. Some of the best work we get is by COI editors who understand the policies and comply with them, but are knowledgeable enough to know where to find the sources. We can't make paid editing go away by barring it. We can limit the damage from it, and even benefit from it, if it is done properly and within the policies, some of which do not yet exist. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with that 100%. I think our COI guideline needs to be changed drastically to make the distinction between a COI and taking actions due to a COI that corrupt our encyclopedic mission. Right now it completely muddles the distinction. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Paid editors are expected to disclose the fact that they are paid editors and have a conflict of interest. That isn't happening here. From his reply at User talk:Faustus37, where he half denies it, and then confirms it, it is evident that Faustus37 is a paid editor who does not disclose conflict of interest. The main issue is the dishonesty about the COI, not the issue of having the COI itself in the first place. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
But he has unequivocally confirmed it here, and having done so, it's analogous to the disclosing of a legitimate sock, and that should settle the question of conflict of interest. Obviously people will look carefully at any article of his that might be about a corporate client, but we would do well to look carefully at all articles on borderline notable corporate entities, because almost all of them are written with some degree of COI. I can understand a tendency to interpret the standards for notability and reliable sourcing rather stringently in this area (though it's hard to formulate it as a fixed rule)--I would have strongly opposed anyone saying something like that a year ago, but we need a defense, and careful scrutiny is the best defense. It's better than prohibitions we have no way of enforcing, and would remove the scrupulous while leaving the defiant. ` DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc.[edit]

This article seems to keep reappearing from what I can see in the history. It seems to be CSD'd then shows up again. Also it was AFC'd over a year ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. I don't have the skills, knowledge, or tools to figure this out. Or, what to do, if I did. Thanks.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
I staywoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
--  :- ) Don 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • They are using AfC, so it is being reviewed. Salting the article isn't going to solve someone bringing it to AfC. Could be a COI creating it, but COI editing isn't a violation by itself, nor is resubmitting an article at AfC after it was CSD'ed. Actually, we prefer that. What is the remedy you are wanting here? Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Infosurv was created in 2005 by user:Infosurv, PROD deleted in 2007, recreated in 2009 by user:Pvisi111 (since blocked as spam account), and deleted again in 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. was created in August 2012 by user:I staywoke (in that user's sandbox) and then moved to AfC. There it was declined on August 28, and again on September 29. At that point it was deleted per CSD G4. On October 8 user:I staywoke started this discussion on User talk:Mrt3366. Before Mrt3366 replied, I staywoke created the AfC again. Mrt3366 replied shortly afterward, and I staywoke hasn't contributed since (so we can't say that I staywoke ignored Mrt3366's advice). All of the article and AfC versions of text I've looked at have been clearly promotional and lacking in sources (the newer ones if anything more so than the older, article-space versions) - so all the deletions and declinations have been quite in order. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that every few years Infosurv hires a new intern who thinks making a Wikipedia article would be a good idea. The first and last didn't stay around for a constructive discussion; the middle one was adding promotional links to many articles. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Finlay, Dennis, that clears up some questions. I would just like to somehow reduce the work load at AfC. I guess we must just remain vigilant, wary, and research. --  :- ) Don 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Also there was Infosurv Concept Exchange, which was created by user:Jaredheyman in 2011 and deleted in 2012 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv Concept Exchange. The deleted Infosurv article says that company was founded by someone named Jared Heyman. As far as Google is concerned, the only mention of Infosurv in article space now is in Cummings Research Park, which personally I don't have a problem with. I haven't done a link check for infosurv.com and icepredict.com, and I'm off to Tescos, so someone else might like to do that. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Linksearch turns up nothing. I'll take a look through the COIBot database later. I agree that this deserves future monitoring. MER-C 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the database either. MER-C 07:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tagged the article in AfC. Unless a miracle occurs, it should be there forever. --  :- ) Don 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have salted, or at least tried to salt, two or three AfC pages when continued attempts at creation became disruptive. But I am not sure that salting works on a subpage. Does anyone actually know? Of course, salting a corporate page can require also salting a number of variants, as here. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My talk is being vandalized or bugged by an mysterious IP user. Requesting immediate help![edit]

Can some one check my talk page history and the markup in "edit" mode? Something very strange is going on. A lot of the content in my talk page suddenly disappeared, despite the content still being there in markup form after clicking on "edit" tab. This started when an IP user (24.0.208.70) began editing my talk page. I initially thought my talk page needed to be archvied because it was too long so I made an archive of a lot of the earlier content. Then the IP user interfered and sent me this mysterious message: [2]. I think a former sock puppet might be vandalizing my page. Please help. It looks like this IP user has vandalized others pages as well: [3] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Some weird stuff was going on there due to a misformatted ref-tag. I've fixed it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ[edit]

Request blocking User:JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR restrictions at WP:MOS. These apply to admins as well as everyone else. If the reversion was so important, let someone else do it. This is clearly not a case of removing obvious vandalizm.[4] and [5] Apteva (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious. For the record, I am not advocating for a block of Apteva for trying to skirt 1RR by first inappropriately deleting the other user's note and then hiding it after I restored it and warned Apteva against deleting other users' talk page comments. I also don't anticipate this to warrant my further comment, so I'm not watching this page; I'm sure I'll discover my potential block soon enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Concur. Ridiculous wikilawyering ANI post. Nobody Ent 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree. JHunterJ is not in violation of anything, and Apteva's removal of comments is not in accord with WP:TPO. --Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that your perspective is correct Neotarf. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages is very clear: "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." And TPO says "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to hide this material as described above." I have no problem in someone asking me about an edit that I made, or in changing the heading to an appropriate heading and collapsing a section, but simply edit warring is not the solution. It was inappropriate for the editor who put it there to put it there. It is not inappropriate to respond by collapsing or moving to a more appropriate page. Apteva (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
So the MOS talk page has completely degenerated into chaos due to Apteva pushing a pet theory about hyphens and capitalization, based on something remembered from grammar school, and has been pushing this theory at multiple forums, including WT:MOS, and no one is allowed to talk about it? This elephant in the room is supposed to be kept a secret? I'm not buying it. The community is supposed to be trying to solve these problems on its own first, and only if that fails, take it to other forums.
As Dicklyon said at AE, Apteva is well known for using multiple accounts, for being contentious, and for editing mostly as an IP (as he says on one of his talk pages); see also sockpuppet case and checkuser case. It's possible that IP 146.90.43.8 that filed the earlier ANI about the RfC is Apteva too, they sound the same but it's impossible to tell. Apteva's user page only started acknowledging this alternate account three weeks ago. [6]
--Neotarf (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This is why I almost never use talk page edit summaries. What was said can be seen above, but this is the edit summary: "if the MOS talk page is broke, that is a subject that belongs on the MOS talk page". And I will address that. No, it does not other than the following, or something similar: Here is what I would suggest. "This discussion is getting out of hand. I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS civility. --~~~~" with not even a subject heading. Talk pages do not have talk pages to discuss the talk pages, but there are many places that discussion about individual editors or groups of editors can appropriately take place. If an individual editor is causing a problem their talk page is the place to bring it up. ANI is for Admin Notice of Incidents, such as the above violation of 1RR that was unfortunately laughed off. AIV is for notification of vandalism. And so on. The Village Pump or Help is where to go if you have no clue where to go. It is interesting that if you look only at the top 10 contributors, up until 2007 the number of posts to the talk page per edit to the MOS page steadily declined - to about 2, and since then took a big jump and has increased to 10 today - all talk and no action. The below mentioned now topic banned editor was consistently in the top 4 of edits to the MOS from 2007 to 2009, did not appear in the top 10 in 2010, and returned to number 3 in 2011. They do not appear in the top 10 in 2012, but that did not help bring down the ration of talk to edit. Maybe they caused the incivility, but it has not gone away. Apteva (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Or just bring it up as an example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement - a discussion that was opened 4 October 2012 and has gone on for 300,000 bytes so far. Apteva (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This has already been brought to Apteva/Delphi234's talk page and the answers ranged from "I see no reason for discussing things that are totally obviously wrong" to "I only opened an RM for moving Mexican-American War because I knew that it had previously been discussed ad nauseum and produced an absurd choice" to "I feel like Clint Eastwood "go ahead ... make my day". So now it belongs on a different forum -- preferably one that those who are interested in MOS will not see? Right. --Neotarf (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better place is "Preferably on one that Admins might see." Apteva (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva[edit]

I'm looking through the history of WT:MOS and Apteva (talk · contribs) appears to be a keen contributor to the page and is editing in a manner which does not seem to be helping the atmosphere there nor in a manner helping to drive forwards consensus in a collegiate manner. Given the page operates under discretionary sanctions, is there any support for a page ban of one month? Hiding T 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Apteva is comparing the infamous punctuation symbol in Mexican American to the Dred Scott decision [7]. Perspective seems to be lacking. Intervention is warranted, just not sure we're at the page ban stage. Nobody Ent 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This would appear to be the required official warning. The personalized charges referred to against myself and DickLyon at WP:AE (which make curious reading) have now been withdrawn. --Neotarf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Keen contributor and does not seem to be helping are an odd juxtaposition. I went to the MOS to fix one problem and found a hundred. I am making a list and will bring them up when appropriate. But a page ban for a day even is not appropriate. I have been asked to back off and I have backed off. Enough said. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Keen contributor" likely meaning "one who makes many contributions" and "does not seem to be helping" likely meaning "those many contributions are largely not productive". Not such an "odd juxtaposition" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Or "excellent contributor" Apteva (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Keen" here connotes eagerness of contribution, not necessarily quality of contribution. As in "I'm keen on having soup for all meals—I am a keen soup-eater." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This might give some indication of the level of disruption. --Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

150 edits. Lets go back a year.[8] or two.[9] Or three.[10] Or four.[11] The number of edits does not indicate the quality of those edits. Apteva (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, banned user and sockmaster Pmanderson immediately leaps to the top. Very er, keen, that one. But the top users are all about the same: 1000 edits here, 900 there. Right now, Apteva, who has just now appeared on the MOS scene, already has more than twice as many edits as any other user. Hmm. --Neotarf (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For clarity's sake, Pmanderson has been WP:BLOCKed for one year [12], not WP:BANned. Not directly relevant here, but it's important to keep one's terminology in good order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the block my understanding is they were topic banned. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I only came here (to the MOS) to fix one problem. I had no idea that it would be so sticky. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet when it was pointed out to you that the community had spent a lot of effort to reach the consensus in question, you vowed to keep on trying to fix the "error". Disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Not disruptive if I have good reason for believing that it is an error, and I act in a respectful, non-disruptive manner. Trust me, 20 years from now someone is going to ask, why is Law not capitalized in Moore's Law? (not a good example for the MOS but a good example for TITLE) A good example is the Dred Scott decision which said that blacks are not people. Did that end the civil rights movement? Was it disruptive for Rosa Parks to take an available seat closer to the front of the bus? Or was it more disruptive to try to hold on to discrimination? The important thing to understand is that right now the MOS does not agree with TITLE, and having the MOS say that it gets to decide titles is shall we say not an optimal solution. A better solution is to rewrite the MOS so that it agrees with TITLE. But having looked over the current MOS, there are many other items that are questionable, and these will also be identified. Whether the two editors who make most of the MOS edits will agree with the changes remains to be seen. First on my list is delete "house style". First no one uses that term and second, WP is not a publishing house and does not have only one approved style. There are many styles and the MOS reflects those styles, and says not to edit war over them. "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." Apteva (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
And no, I do not consider "Mexican American War" with an endash a valid use of English in that context, because over at TITLE what is done is choose the best title. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The advice in the MOS not to make changes because of the MOS to the title, though, is good advice. Apteva (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom has already determined that MOS is the unique style guide for English Wikipedia. [13] Yet, even after DickLyons's warning, Apteva declared at MOS talk page that "WP... does not have a house style", that the MOS merely "explains" what other styles are, and that "editors refer to it for suggestions, but use their own common sense in applying what it says." [14] On the contrary, as was brought out at the much-cited ArbCom capitalization case, editing gnomes wish to consider "the MOS as a relatively stable, foundational framework to guide editors in producing a relatively consistent work" and wish to limit the instability caused by hard-to-track conflicting edits, inadequate edit summaries, and unannounced discussions. Bot operators also depend on the stability of MOS. I find it hard to understand why someone would choose to edit MOS if they do not buy into the same values as other editors here, that Wikipedia is prestigious enough, and unique enough to have its own house style. --Neotarf (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, instability in the MOS is at the root of some of the most protracted, difficult and acrimonious "wars" on WP and can be extremely disruptive to Wikignoming. A stable MOS is the foundation on which the standards of the entire project stand - without it we cannot deliver consistent quality product. Roger (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Support a one month ban for Apteva from the MOS for battleground behavior. This should not be taken to mean I don't think many others on that page have engaged in battleground behavior and should be banned as well, but at the moment Apteva seems to be the worst offender, and that's a good place to start with sanctions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
That is silly. I will voluntarily avoid the MOS. Apteva (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
"I will voluntarily avoid the MOS." That's the most intelligent thing anyone has said about the MOS in a long time. Unfortunately, I read it right after "A stable MOS is the foundation on which the standards of the entire project stand - without it we cannot deliver consistent quality product" which is one of the silliest things I've heard said. Striking my support of ban on the condition that Apteva stay away from the MOS for a month. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't add up, if Apteva is required to stay away from the MOS for a month then that is a topic ban. in which case why are you striking out your vote? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on. That is not a topic ban. Its a voluntary decision to stay away from the article by Apteva and simply clarified as to how long that should probably be by Nathan. A months time is not a demand, but a request and is based on the words of the other user. Apteva may simple state agreement or opposition to the amount of time a counter back with what they feel is appropriate. I think a month is a good time period to set.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I think what Nathan is saying is that they do not on their own impose a topic ban and do not at this time support a one month topic ban but that if I edited the MOS in the next month that position could change in a hurry. I do not anticipate making any such edits, and I am saying that I will voluntarily not be posting to any of the 71 MOS talk pages, or editing any of the 71 MOS pages. I will, however, carefully be reading all of them, and applying all of them to the best of my ability. It is well known what some of the changes are that I recommend, and making them in a month or a year or a decade is really not that important. And not making them if they are ill advised is as well. I would like to see the silliness at MOS stop, but I will not be there to help make it stop. There are 4,000,000 articles that I would rather be working on anyway. Here are the stats for the ratio between posts to the talk page to changes to WP:MOS:
  • 2005 5.37
  • 2006 2.79
  • 2007 2.07
  • 2008 5.75
  • 2009 7.52
  • 2010 6.97
  • 2011 8.53
  • 2012 10.00
Whatever was going on in 2007 was far better than what is going on today, especially when you know that many if not most of the edits to the MOS today are reverted. I am not going to come back in a month to see how things are going. Who knows how long it will be? If it is three weeks it would only be for something really serious, such as, did you know that half of the first page of the MOS has been missing for a week due to vandalism? And the chances of that happening is zero. What I do ask, though, is that the suggestions that I have made be given serious consideration, and not discounted simply because of who made them. Apteva (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Apteva, a voluntary decision to avoid MoS for a while could be good. In my view, somewhat at a distance over the past month or so, your contributions have tended to unnecessarily raise blood-pressures. If you need assistance or possibly collaboration in any of your article contributions, please ask me. Tony (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of ongoing discussion[edit]

I'd like an admin view on this blanking of the talk page at Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Some of the threads are current, and as may be seen from the talk page history, the latest entries were about half an hour old when everything was removed! I don't mind old threads being archived - and there were a few with whiskers on - but when people are still discussing issues, we need a bit more explanation. I restored the page and it was blanked again, this time with the odd advice that people could continue their discussion on the archive page.

Rather than edit-war over this, could I get someone with a broom to look at the thing, please? I think a reasonable solution is that anything over (say) a year old can be archived and an ongoing program set up to automatically store threads a suitable time after the last contribution. --Pete (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're wasting people's time on AN/I over something that's barely got legs. The solution is to take out comments over a month old, but it's a problem when randoms come along and comment on 5 year old threads... doesn't help. Why are we here? Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
While archiving was in order, the more recent threads should be left in given that Alan Jones is in the news again (if for no other reason than to stop people re-raising topics which have been discussed previously). Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are we here? i'd like to hear an admin's perspective... you said, Timeshift.[15] I'd like some informed comments as well. Why remove threads in which you yourself are actively participating? You did it twice, so it wasn't an accident, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm an involved admin given my prior interactions with both of you, but my suggestion is to un-archive the threads which were started in the last month. This isn't a very complicated issue. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Pete, hoping for an admin to comment on the talk page is not an ANI request... and no, it wasn't an accident. It's hoping that the talk page can start fresh again with relevant comments on a high-volume page. It's called archiving, and as the archive tag says, people can continue a discussion if they so wish. It's not complicated. But trying to seperate recent comments from 2007 comments, considering the length and breadth of it, would be hard. If it can be done, great. But failing that, this is the next best. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Set an archive bot on the page, specify an appropriate delay, and the problem is solved the next time the bot runs. I'm just wondering why you would add three comments to an ongoing thread and then half an hour later nuke the whole page including several other current threads, as well as the one you posted to. You've been around long enough to know that's not how we do things. --Pete (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That talk page needed archiving - all the historic stuff should stay archived. - Youreallycan 03:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While you've all shifted to furiously debating this on ANI, I restored most of it. While I sympathise with some of the sentiment in Timeshift's explanation, unilaterally removing a whole talk page - much of which was current - is just not done, despite his apparent good intentions. I did however remove any section that had no comment in the last month or so. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 thread is a bit attacking calling him a criminal and someone with questionable sexuality ? - the thread - the old stuff from 2007 should be archived - break the thread and keep the current discussion under a new header if you want but please archive, or allow me to archive the attacking 2007 discussion -  Done - There appears to be a fair bit of undue discussion remaining/continuing on the talkpage, there is no excuse for Hitler to be mentioned five times and Stalin three times on the living subjects talkpage - whoever it is - please stop. - the talkpages of living people are for more focused discussions relating to possible content additions only and are not for expounding opinions etc. Please see and comply with Wikipedia:NOTFORUM - thanks - Youreallycan 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
While I'm willing to work with status quo, I am uncomfortable with HiLo apparently enlisting Djapa in what appears like personal attacks on me. The abrupt involvement of Timeshift *feels* related. I am isolated, and only wish to contribute. My original question might well have been met equally effectively, but less abusively, with silence, or more constructively than with the invective. cf http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/when-wiki-editors-abuse.html DDB (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It really is nice that nobody at "Sydney Conservative" has disagreed with you :-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo[edit]

Can anyone take a look at Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? Multiple disruptive IPs are reinstating WP:NOTFORUM material after being repeatedly warned/reverted. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That talk page should be semi-protected to say the least. Those revisions should be eliminated, as well. --MuZemike 05:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've semi'd it for 4 days to keep the riff-raff out; I'll keep an eye on it when it expires. Not sure why they'd pick such an obscure place to make their grand announcement, but that's their problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I imagine that their entry point was via one of the many websites which have lists of weird articles. The Emu War article also receives some odd traffic via these websites. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
So... they're attempting to buffalo the article? (I'll get my coat...) Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I sure hope the vandals aren't large bovines from upstate New York, because if Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo might have to be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. 09:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12's disruptive editing[edit]

User:SNIyer12 indeffed by Elen of the Roads. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 20 October 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.

There is a discussion at the WikiProject Baseball talk page regarding SNIyer12's failure to follow consensus and continued re-insertion of content that does not belong. I am not really involved in the situation, but as nobody else has reported it here, I am doing so. Please note that the editor has been approached on their talk page and has not responded. I am not very familiar with the situation, but as I understand it, one instance is this insertion of content on 1996 New York Yankees season. As you can tell from the page history, this is not the first time SNIyer12's edits to this page have been reverted. I hope that some of the more involved editors can elaborate more fully on this, I am simply starting the discussion as no one else has done so. AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we might've taken this user to ANI before, but I don't recall for sure. This editor has violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POINT in an ongoing fashion for several years now. There is a minimal, at best, engagement from the user in discussion on various talk pages, but it doesn't change anything in the user's behavior. It's not vandalism, but it's disruptive, and it's gotten on my very last nerve. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
SNIyer12's conduct has been brought to ANI in January 2007 and July 2009. I see the second time he got a 48 hour block. It accomplished nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The issue, ultimately, their being non-responsive to concerns raised to them, and that they engage in very slow moving edit wars across multiple articles. SNyler has a habit of obsessing over various topics, and if what he inserts somewhere (often SYNTH) is challenged, they just wait a little while, then reinsert in the hopes that nobody will notice. When they get reverted again, the process continues. And in some cases, this process lasts over a year or more. My personal inclination is that if they won't respond to the concerns, a block is the only way to end the slow moving edit wars. I've taken articles of theirs to AFD, and have attempted to engage them on numerous topics, so would not consider it appropriate for me to take such action myself. Resolute 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What's your desired end-state here? A block? That's how I'm reading this. Skimming through some contributions and his lack of responsiveness, I think that might be the only way to get his attention. Go Phightins! 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. If the disruption was limited to just one article, I'd say topic ban him from that article. However, it appears that more than one page is in question, so I'd certainly say a block is in order. AutomaticStrikeout 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No, blocks are not the answer. Neither are bans. Use the RFCU for community sanctions by vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like some sort of block IS the answer. If the guy continues to corrupt articles and won't talk, then solely going through the RFCU bureaucracy is insufficient. It will take time and will allow continued damage to wikipedia. Put him on ice for whatever amount of time the RFCU will likely need to run. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
They have been warned over and over for years now. Personally I would have blocked them long ago if I didn't feel like I was probably too involved to do so. At the very least he/she needs a block at a step up from his last block. He/she was blocked 48 hours...lets block him/her a week and see if they are willing to start talking. And RFCU is fine, but more often than not they lead nowhere. But if people think we should go that way lets do it. But for an RFCU to work they have to be involved and talk, and well that is the problem currently, we can't get him/her to talk. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable...Go Phightins! 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Truthfully, I don't care if SNyler never says anything to anyone. What I do care about is not having to watch a bunch of articles for the re-addition of the same rejected crap over and over and over. WP:BRD is just a guideline, but if they won't discuss, then they should accept the revert as the end of the line. Resolute 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
What's most important, is getting SNIyer12 to stop re-adding his trivia info to the articles-in-question. A Rfc/U, would be the first step. If he doesn't participate there? then blocks are the next steop. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that SNIyer12 has been inactive, since this report was made. Not very encouraging, as it appears to be a waiting game on his part. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah...I posted a blurb on his talk page asking him to comment at the ANI discussion to explain himself, but to no avail. Yesterday, he blanked a section of 2011 Washington Redskins season, which I reverted since there was no explanation and then posted a blanking level one note. I imagine he's just going to wait both this discussion, and an eventual block, if that's what comes of it, out. Maybe an indef block (which could be an hour or a year) would be an order and it would only be removed subject to a request in which he addresses this behavior. Go Phightins! 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have issued an indeffblock, with engaging in discussion about why his edits are a problem as the grounds for unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Go Phightins! 16:20, 20 October 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.

Marty Morrissey[edit]

Editor indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 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 think I've identified a newly registered VOA. It might or might not be connected to any previous IP vandalism on the same page (see edit history, above, for diffs). Any Admin or happen-to-be-Checkuser eyes would be appreciated. JFHJr () 02:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The same user has vandalized Brian Cowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JFHJr () 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:AIV? dangerouspanda 10:12, 20 October 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.

Excessive edits[edit]

No administrative action required.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 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.

R-41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Social democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unusual case. R-41 will frequently re-write articles and make dozens of edits in a short period of time, often with no edit summaries. As a result, editors are unable to see the changes that have been made. I recommend that R-41 be restricted to 5 edits per article per day.
On Talk:Social democracy, I wrote (17:21, 17 October 2012), "I notice btw that R-41 has made 140 edits to the article in the last two days, none of which are labelled "minor", the overwhelming number of which have no edit summary explaining the changes made. That makes it next to impossible for other editors to follow what changes have been made."[16] Since then he has made 17 more edits.[17] Since the beginning of the month he has made approximately 170 edits to Fascism. In September he made approximately 70 edits. In July he made 30 edits. In June, 37 edits.[18] He should use a word processing application, such as his sandbox, and explain each edit, including identifying minor edits. TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the one comment you made about this in passing on a talk page, have you tried to talk to R-41 about this, or did you come straight here? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I often run into crap articles that need a full rewrite and have seen little attention for years. Unless a problem is demonstrated with R-41s edits (not shown here), this is just a WP:BURO proposal. If R-41 were to use the sandbox and then paste one giant change with edit summary "rewrote article because it was crap", it would not make any real difference in the effort required to review the change(s) he made. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -> I see no issues here. It is a personal choice whether to make a hundred small edits or one big one. Edit summary are preferable, and highly useful, but they are not mandatory. I think we should encourage good content contributors, not put more hurdles on them. It's not really a nice thing to come here, ask for restriction because an editor is doing a good job (as I don't see any complaints about the content of the edits in this thread) without even contacting them and discussing the matter first, I hope it was discussed somewhere and this last point is moot, but regardless I see no basis for imposing such restrictions on our valued content contributors. Snowolf How can I help? 10:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the 2 above mentioned reasons. I have myself have taken stubbed or crappy articles and entirely re-written/expanded them, often in my sandboxes. And often times I would prefer other editors do the same instead of make 100 small edits that one has to go through sometimes to undo one bad one. If the editor in question can not be shown to be breaking any policies, xe should not be restricted like this. If xe is violating other policies, xe should be dealt with appropriately for that, not restricted to 5 edits.Heiro 10:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Asking the editor to slow down and stop making so many drastic changes without discussion is certainly a valid point. We see this all over Wikipedia, where editors are reverted so that the article is put back to the WP:STATUSQUO and actual collaboration can take place, and especially if the current state of the article is the WP:CONSENSUS version (WP:CONSENSUS is policy, although so many tend to forget that around here). There are even WP:1RR restrictions on articles for this very reason. Making drastic changes to an article, especially a constroversial one, without regard for what other editors may think of any of the changes is not collaborative editing. It comes across as straight-up arrogance and WP:OWNING the article. Apparently, R-41 "retired" from Wikipedia in August of this year due to POV-pushing experiences with other editors,[19][20], and came back early September,[21] but what I see is that he is also a POV-pusher. Take a look at these diffs from the Social democracy article, for example, where he is accused of trying to own the article and removing something because he doesn't like it.[22][23](JUSTDON'TLIKEIT)[24] I have to agree on both points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.76.22 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There is no necessity to continue voting on a proposal that on its face has no basis. I will leave a message for R-41 that using edit summaries is recommended. Other than that, there's nothing more here to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 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.

Repeated accusations that editors who disagree with the reported editor are biased etc.[edit]

No administrative action required. No need to keep this open despite reporter's request.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 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.

Andromedean has taken part in a discussion on an article talk page. There he repeatedly made claims (diffs below) that the editors who disagreed with him where biased, had agendas or had COIs. He reported one editor to WP:WQA which backfired when I provided diffs of these accusations. He did not immediately remedy is conduct, but following this warning, he participated in the WP:DRN with only one accidentally misworded comment, which I am unable to relocate. However, as this (specifically "once again I smell a rat and politics and bias wins over reason, honesty and hard work!") shows, it is still his opinion that when he doesn't get everything the way he wants, the cause is disingenuous editors. I see this as a major problem when discussing with him, as even when he doesn't voice his concerns he has no incentive to move towards a compromise as he truly believes those who disagree with him are untrustworthy. I question the place of such accusations in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia, and ask that he is at least severely admonished. If the community feels that such accusations are acceptable (when not proven or reasonably suspected), I have no place here. If the accusations are found to be reasonable or proven, action must be taken against the accused editors, which is why I asked him to take the matter here if he truly believes them. The specific policies violated are civility and no personal attacks. The last of these seems to be more enforced than the first.

PS: Diffs from WQA discussion (not exhaustive:I provided diffs of the other editor as well, and other editors provided diffs): 1, 2, 3, 4.

PPS: Please excuse if malformed. There was no guide in the editing window. I have seen this on other places where issues are reported.

PPPS: This is seemingly my first edit, because I forced an IP jump when the DRN discussion was finished. I had no desire to continue editing after the extensive discussion. The resurfacing of the allegations made it necessary to bring the issue to community attention. I will place "subst:ANI-notice" presently. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that has created a little heat. Based on what you've said and the diffs you've provided, I see no obvious policy violations or need for administrative intervention. I still haven't figured out why Andromedean took a content dispute to WQA, but I also didn't feel like reading through the walls of text to understand the content dispute itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
If it is indeed community consensus that it is acceptable to claim that other editors are "biased" ("It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian will take the above points seriously"), having "political agendas" ("[You and Sport and Politics] have the political agenda here", "you have an agenda") or "cencoring information" ("[this] prove[s] though how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information") then I do not belong here.
I do not and cannot agree that a simple disagreement warrants my integrity being questioned.
I also think the behaviour evidenced in the diffs is hindering consensus building (which is essential for resolving content disputes), because it necessitates that editors defend themselves as well as their views. Note that when I responded to these comments I asked him to desist, in addition to commenting on the substance of what he was saying. I may have seen his valid points for including some of what he wanted much earlier if he hadn't advanced invalid and incivil (in my view: bordering on personal attacks) points simultaneously.
I see that there is a certain unwillingness to deal with civility issues here, and I fear you will regret this in the long run. I support this project in principle (i.e. the five pillars), but it is impossible for me to take part in it if the civility pillar has crumbled. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you would prefer a discussion that is devoid of any comments on editor conduct or speculation as to editor motives, but, unfortunately, many discussions at Wikipedia aren't as "professional" as they might be. Editors get hot under the collar and say things they arguably shouldn't. Other editors, feeling provoked, respond in kind, and the discussion often gets derailed - and without any benefit. It also doesn't help that all this takes place in a virtual/anonymous world where people tend to behave differently from the way they do in the brick-and-mortar world. But that is a part of Wikipedia. Some editors deplore it more than others. There are often contentious discussions about WP:CIVILITY, what it means, and how it's applied. All I can say is the best thing to do is not take it personally or even seriously, ignore it, and focus on the content dispute. In that way, you'll reduce your stress levels and you'll hopefully advance the discussion toward a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have left my opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement and decided to not take part in the project for the time being. Ad hominems should not be accepted. I think you would lose fewer good editors by punishing ad hominems than you currently lose by not doing so. Please don't close this immediately, I would be interested to see other opinions on whether the specific actions backed up by diffs are considered acceptable. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to vouch for Andromedean's character and integrity. Andro has started the Technology section on London Olympics, and worked extensively to provide sources and improve on the quality, and neutral point of view of the section. Andro maybe inexperienced, but there is no question in regard to his personal integrity, well intention and dedication in bringing a highly controversial topic to other readers' attention. While this INI is on Andro and not on other editors, I will stay on record to say most of his allegations are not unfounded, albeit sometime the choice of words and the way they were expressed could be adjusted, even in a heated argument. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 16:43, 20 October 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.

In his comment above Showmebeef claims that Andromedean's claims are not unfounded, i.e. that they have a strong foundation, or are based on solid reasons or facts. I want to note that the allegations againt me and other editors are serious; the actions described go against the very essence of Wikipedia. I strongly feel that such allegations should be backed up by evidence and made at a proper venue (e.g. by opening a discussion here and not by mentioning it en passant on a talk page) and properly investigated, or unequivocally withdrawn.
By closing this as not requiring action you have given Andromedean, and all other editors in content disputes, a carte blanche to claim that editors who disagrees with them are biased and have agendas. I agree that blocks may not be necessary, but surely such accusations deserve a stern telling of, so as to not become the permanent debating style of such users. Is it the goal of Wikipedia that consensus shall be achieved by discussing, or by editors leaving until only the most persistent or rude editors remain? Ad hominems are not genuine arguments, but in the current lax regime content disputes may nevertheless be "resolved" by them. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Some customized (customised) warnings, at User talk:61.23.51.246[edit]

Improperly formed report, other editor improperly-notified, odd and uncivil...but over a year old, and the person who left them has retracted them. The two editors are now having a chat outside of ANI that should lead to resolution/mutual understanding. Considering all of the above, there's no need to leave this open (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 20 October 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 had discovered and noticed some slightly strange customized warnings, at User talk:61.23.51.246. Well, were they, well, all-right? -- KC9TV 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to,

Some other articles you will have to vandalise to push your anti-British POV:

I have no further comment at this time... Wow. Theopolisme 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no further comment. They are just slightly strange, that is all. -- KC9TV 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do. Elizium's comments are weird. This report is weird. Why do we care about something that occurred over a year ago? Is there any reason to keep this open?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Never mind! This is NOT a report. Well, just close this, then! I thank you, and my apologies to him! -- KC9TV 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, please keep this open. I would like to review the behavior of the filing user, particularly his interactions with me. Diffs are coming shortly. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I have admittedly not very much interaction with you. -- KC9TV 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
@KC9TV, everything here is a "report". I'll keep this open, though, in deference to Elizium; after all, I called their comments "weird", seems only fair. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 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.

Suspect edits by WalrusKingofFinland[edit]

Could someone review the edits of WalrusKingofFinland (talk · contribs). Most of the edits seem to be vandalism with two unsourced biographies, one of which is a blatant attack page by calling the subject a pedophile. —Farix (t | c) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems Materialscientist (talk · contribs) already banned them while I was making this report. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Cheesepary2 (talk · contribs) seems to be an alternative account of WalrusKingofFinland. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm certain I recall a vandal with a very similar username from earlier this year - might be worth getting a checkuser in on this if you take it to SPI... Yunshui  11:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Both are blocked, doing the CU to look for sleepers sounds like a good plan. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The users Bradsampson111, Raymondmckeeever123, Walrus&Oslo, GitBelly, SamJordan10, J.Tobin 117, J.smith15, Connorboyce, Cheesepary, Eugene Lesley and Jordan tobin are now blocked. Still looking for the banned editor behind 'em. Seem to be bored employee/employees of one organisation. I blocked the lot, if any appeal it would be worth checking their edits as it is possible there is a legitimate one among them, althought I didn't spot one, and suspect this is the work of one person. On the other hand, let me know if he continues to spawn vandal accounts and I will take further action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheesepary appears to be the original sock master. Although SamJordan10 is older, that appears to be a separate account. Even if the quality of the edits to Castle View Enterprise Academy isn't particularly good, they appear to be in good faith. —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson History Past PResent and Future Best Selling Albums List[edit]

Nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 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.

For some days now the album History Past Present and Future was taken off the "best selling album" list (because no one bothered to add the sales references necessary),however, it still appears on the Michael Jackson page as ,,,,"Off The Wall,Thriller , Bad, Dangerous, and 'History' are the best selling albums" (with a link to the aforementioned page. I have contacted several editors to fix this ( because I cant) however nothing has been done for some time. The solution is either 1). add the necessary sales reference to the best selling albums list for History Past Present Future,,or 2. remove it from the Michael Jackson page ,--65.8.188.248 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you use {{edit protected}} on the article's talk page, someone will come along and heed your request.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the response i got when i discussed the matter of BEST SELLING ALBUMS,,,,,,,,,,,IS THIS ALLOWED?

Forum shoppingPlease stop forum shopping. You posted your request at Talk:Michael Jackson. That is sufficient. Posting it on multiple other Wikipedia help pages will not get better results for you, and, in fact, may irritate editors. Shouting and bothering people is not the way to get something accomplished here. If you are an adult (and so far you haven't convinced me), you need to behave like an adult instead of a ten year old if you want people to take you seriously. Cresix (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

--65.8.188.248 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is what allowed? What's your question? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The IP doesn't like the response from Cresix, which was a tad harsh. @65, an edit request has to be very specific and be accompanied by reliable sources. In addition, there's no reason to use capital letters (it's interpreted as shouting as Cresix said), and why are you repeating commas? It's annoying and won't help you. Anyway, as near as I can understand your request, if you want History Past Present and Future to be re-added to the article (I haven't looked at the article) as a best-seller, then ask for that and find a reliable source to support it. In any event, there's nothing for us to do here at ANI. Keep it on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 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.

Sock back using 212.183.128.? range[edit]

A recent SPI blocked a range of socks naming Hackneyhound as the master - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive, and it was clear that this sock uses Vodafone mobile IP addresses from the 212.183.128.X range. One of those socks was User:Scandal Bird. Today at De primo Saxonum adventu there's 2 been edits by 212.183.128.109 and 212.183.128.54 reverting to Scandal Bird's version - perhaps a range of IP addresses needs blocking also as this sock is being persistent. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I did the SPI, but that range rotates really really fast. I'd rather someone better with the rangeblock tool had a go at it to minimise the collateral damage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it even possible to be effective without collateral damage if it rotates really fast? --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime, I did semi-protect that article for a week. If it is a large or rapidly changing range, we may need to just semi all of the articles that are this person's target. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a deletion without appropriate discussion?[edit]

I'm concerned with the move of an article from article space to name space. There was an extensive discussion of merging numerous articles that resulted, and that discussion is now outside the article talk space. It could be argued that the attempted combination is a content fork, but there has been no deletion discussion that I am aware of. (Of course, it also could be argued that this is a topic in its own right.) The initial move left numerous links from article space to a user page, so I reverted. Since then, Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has undone all links to it and repeated the move. I do not want to make a mess of things, but this is unique in my experience. It seems like the best current action would be to undo the move, leave the article orphaned for the time being, and require a deletion discussion, but I'm just guessing. Even if I am right, a few other opinions would help direct this to the most effective possible resolution.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

All I did was fixing double redirects and remove two "see also" links. After Taylornate's edit war, there was a consensus to (1) keep the articles on individual muscles and (2) Taylornate's article Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. Since then, however, there is no hints that this contributor will actually add anything to this article or anything else on Wikipedia. Since the article is an orphan since 6 months, moving the page back to the contributor's user space made sense. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Orphan is not by itself a reason for either deletion or merging, and Taylornate is not the only editor who could write the article. I suggest it be considered in the meantime as a set index article. Userifying is deletion, and if Fama Clamosa wants to try that route he should use AFD. In the meantime, I've reverted. There are probably some redirects and other tags that need clean-up. Novangelis, I leave it to you--if any of it needs the admin buttons, let me know on my talk page DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP problem and legal threat[edit]

A new editor, Treyc1953 (talk · contribs), has added material to Talk:Lester Coleman that is a major BLP violation, and re-added it after I removed it. The editor has also made a legal threat at user:Dawholetruth2, probably thinking it was that editor who removed the material. This sort of thing happens every few months at the Lester Coleman article, which is about a convicted scam artist. I will, with great reluctance, notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. In the future, just let me know via email when this happens. If any functionaries/arbcom want to know what this is about, this should be discussed privately. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Please e-mail me with a general description of what's going on, when you have a moment. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Threats by Sayyed Bastami[edit]

I was alerted by another user that there was edit-warring occurring at Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding original research into the article. Upon further investigation I found that the edit-warring Sayyed Bastami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), among other assorted personal attacks, left the following message at the other user's talkpage: One more thing We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. I think a block is needed asap until this user clarifies who is in the group he is referring to. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I've left a warning on Batami's user talk. The editor that was the recipient of the post does not appear to be put off, so I don't know if a block is warranted. Tiderolls 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The "we" part is weird and may require further attention. Just sayin'. Tiderolls 03:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is threatening and a violation of WP:ROLE. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It's the slogan of Anonymous (group).--Shirt58 (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I know. I can see where invoking certain slogans could be blockable, or at least lead to a discussion on blocking. Is that the case here? Tiderolls 04:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The thing is this account has edit-warred, personally attacked his "opponent" and also used slogans implying he belongs to a group. Overall I find this eminently blockable behaviour on multiple grounds: PA, EW, ROLE, HARASS etc. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not convinced the account falls under WP:ROLE. As noted, it's just the slogan of Anonymous. More likely, it's some kid trying to sound threatening by coughing up the well-known (though apparently not well-known enough) slogan of a ~scary~ hacktivist group. That said, he's clearly not here to be be productive, so we can probably dump the WP:ALPHABETSOUP and just block 'em already. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Poetic justice if the block notice uses the slogan? Just sayin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent removal of level 2 headings[edit]

IP blocked (by me) for 1 month for disruptive editing. Logged-in accounts may still edit (✉→