Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive834

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

New editor with CIR, BLP, COPYVIO issues[edit]

Could someone please have a nice, quiet chat with brand new editor User:Daffyduck1234? He's been adding copyvio images to pages (IMDB images uploaded to Commons as "own work" and then added to article here), adding unsourced non-consensus material regarding the death of Margie Hines, creating sub-stub articles with a single sentence and no references, and so on, and seems reluctant to listen to what's on his talk page -- instead he just bulls ahead. BMK (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to bring this, which I think could possibly be a self-portrait, to the attention of whoever talks to the editor. BMK (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought that this person might be this guy at first, but the pattern isn't quite right. Sigh, I'm becoming a jaded admin seeing socks everywhere. :( -- Atama 01:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess that one of the drawbacks of the job, becoming jaded.

The young man just dropped a warning on my user page (not my talk page), so he's certainly seeing the comments I'm leaving for him, even if he's not taking them into account. BMK (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's on the record, BMK. You have been warned. Anyway, I'll see if maybe another person chiming in helps, sometimes people think that if one person is addressing their misbehavior, it's just some jerk, but if someone else comes in maybe there's a legitimate complaint (although it can also mean the second person is the jerk's henchman or something). But it's worth a try. -- Atama 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have made any difference - he created two new crude unsourced sub-stub articles. I'm afraid that this is going to come down to a competency block, since I'm not sure that the editor is understanding what he's being told. BMK (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
One step forward, but then a step sideways: The editor is not uploading copyrighted pictures to Commons now, just very bad photos of streets taken from inside a car. These purport to be (and may well be, I don't know) streets named after the subjects of article - i.e. "Pennell lane" for William Pennell - and they are being added to to the subject's articles without citational support or explanation. He also continues to add unsupported birth and death dates to biographical articles - again, these might be accurate, and he might be getting then from a source, but no source is listed. There's also been no response on the talk page to the various comments, including now a final warning from another editor. BMK (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────A comment on his talk page from the editor, but it's not encouraging. Under the section title "I'm tyring to he helpful": "Stop talking to me I created Wikipedia and I forbid blocking my edits."

Unfortunately, I think it's time for a competency block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY. BMK (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely fair, BMK. He actually said "I'm trying to be helpful". Not that I'm against Atama's block or anything. Good block. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
Bish (may I call you that?), I think it's quite fair when "I'm trying to be helpful" is paired with "Stop talking to me" (discussion is the essence of collegiality and impossible without it), "I forbid blocking my edits" and "I created Wikipedia", which are both either trolling or delusional. (P.S. If you're responding to the misspelling of "trying", that was a typo on my part.) BMK (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I assumed it was a typo, after I checked. But I was actually responding to the misspelling of "trying" as "tyring" and the misspelling of "be" as "he", in a quote of five words. I'm sorry, but the impression I got before checking (which not everybody does) was that you were showing up the user as a careless typist, and I didn't think it should be left without comment, to make the same impression on others. But it's moot, the user has been blocked, and not for careless typing. I call you BMK, so feel free to call me anything you like, down to and including "B". Bishonen | talk 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
I'm not a touch-typist, so my rate of typos goes up the faster I try to type. Please rest assured that I was attempting not to characterize Daffyduck1234's typing or spelling, but to point out the content of their talk page comment, which was rather strange.

As you say, water under the bridge at this point. BMK (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Marnette D, whose opinion I respect, appears to think that we're being trolled. This is quite possible, as at some point extreme incompetency and trolling are very difficult to tell apart. It actually doesn't matter all that much, though, since the end result is the same: time and effort are sucked up and the project is not improved. BMK (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say about Hanlon's Razor... Writ Keeper  20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

I've just run out of AGF. The brand new editor User:Sandboxxxxx is quite obviously a sock of Daffyduck1234, making the same edits on Margie Hines, re-creating the speedily deleted sub-sub-stub Buddy red bow (which I've again marked for speedy deletion). Competence or trolling, eh, who cares, the editor isn't going to listen, and isn't going to play by the rules, so both accounts should be indef blocked. BMK (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur about the trolling. The "final warning" was received at 16:12, 26 March 2014 and after that warning, they performed edits that added incorrect information then immediately reverted, at Margie Hines and Elbridge Bryant. It looks to me like taunting, where they can say "I did it again but I reverted right away so you can't touch me". In light of this, I've blocked Daffyduck1234 indefinitely, and I'm also going to block the sockpuppet. -- Atama 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. An odd case, I wonder if we'll see the editor again? BMK (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
What I wonder is whether we've seen the editor before. My sockpuppet radar went off immediately when I first read this report (as I said then), but I tried to exercise WP:AGF and then the person started using a sock, so maybe my instinct wasn't so much paranoia. -- Atama 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Their areas of interest seem rather tightly defined, so it might be worthwhile poking around. There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth about the Margie Hines date of death issue, but I can't recall if there was socking involved. BMK (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There was indeed socking, and I was in the middle of reporting it (memory starts failing as you get older, you know). It's not impossible that our friend was this editor, who stopped editing a month ago, and who earlier admitted to being this puppet master. My description of the writing style of the master fits:

[A] distinctive style of writing: one line paragraphs, infrequent use of caps, use of ampersand and other informalities, and they generally don't sign their posts. Their edits are generally helpful, but their writing is weak, and their attitude on talk pages a bit confrontational with overtones of ownership.

That's not quite enough to say it's a match, but it's pretty intriguing. My AGF tank's a bit empty at the moment, so I'll say that it's possible to interpret a one month gap in editing as an attempt to make their edits too stale for CU to use as comparison -- but, of course, there have been other gaps of that size and longer in the editing history. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Now he's editing as User:Ginsterama. Undoubtedly the same person as Daffyduck1234 and Sandboxxxxx. BMK (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Two more unsourced sub-sub-stubs created (Kate Wright and Victoria d'orazi). SPI opened at [1]. Can someone please salt Buddy red bow until this blows over? BMK (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And another Phil philmar. BMK (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And now Marcus powell. BMK (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And indef blocked by NawlinWiki. BMK (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The sub-stub article Marcus powell just deleted by NawlinWiki was previously deleted on 22 August 2007 by Lectonar. Could an admin take a look at that deleted article and report who created it? It might help figure out if Daffyduck1234 is a known puppetmaster. BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Similarly Kate Wright was previously deleted two times. Knowing who created those two would be good. BMK (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Marcus powell was originally created by Matt0012 (talk · contribs) on 22 August 2007. Kate Wright was originally created by BoopBoopaDoop (talk · contribs) on 20 October 2009 and recreated by Bayoneta (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2010. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
As I remarked above, Bayoneta is an admitted sock of BoopDoopaDoop (see the SPI report on that editor in the archive), who was allowed to keep editing after apologizing. Matt0012 is a new name to me. BMK (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That is, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There's a big backup at SPI, so I don't expect to hear anything from that quarter for a while, but it does seem highly probable that Daffyduck1234 (aka Sandboxxxxx, aka Ginsterama) is Bayoneta, admitted sockpuppet of Betty Boop-obsessed puppetmaster BoopBoopaDoop. Why Bayoneta apparently stopped responsible editing to return to disruptive activities is a bit of a mystery, but maybe he or she missed the excitement, I dunno. I do think that we're currently at a standstill in the absence of further activities from this editor or results from a CU, so probably this thread should be closed for the moment, and the discussion can be revived if things pick up again. BMK (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Symbol merge vote.svg Checkuser requested - The Bushranger One ping only 14:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
SPI was just clerk-endorsed to check for connections. BMK (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A CU check found no connection between the Daffyduck editors and Bayoneta (who is the only known link to BoopBoopaDoop), or, presumably to any other sockfarms. Since there hasn't been any disruptive editing on this front for a while, an uninvolved party should probably close this. BMK (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and Sandboxxxx is Daffyduck1234, and Ginsterama is probable. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Three week edit war over WP:BLP violations[edit]

I'm not a regular editor of this article about Ted Nugent, however it is on my watchlist and I happened to notice an edit-war over what appears to be a pretty obvious WP:BLP violation. A non-reliable source was being used as a source for contentious material about a living person.[2] I have no idea whether the accusation is true, nor do I care. But we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice an opinion held by a non-reliable source (AKA an advocacy organization without a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). Therefore, I have partially reverted the edit.[3] I invite other experienced editors knowledgeable about WP:RS and WP:BLP to examine the issue. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. Good work. --John (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge, better work would have been looking at the extensive RFC discussion on the talk page and at least acknowledging it. No idea why you posted about it on here, especially since that content was only one piece of the "edit war" that died down 10 days ago. --NeilN talk to me 01:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point, NeilN. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
RS for the quote itself: Los Angeles Times, CNN, New Yorker. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There is edit warring going on, its almost exclusively by Citizen150 who has been blocked for his warring multiple times on this article (and has confirmed socks doing the warring for him too). That warring continued today adding in unsourced information that the editor has tried to add many times [[4]]. The "BLP" issue has been repeatedly removed by this user, and repeatedly added by a quite a few other editors. Its very well sourced that Nugent made these statements. Its also very well sourced that its been commented on repeatedly. There are the sources Finlay posted above, and a longer section in the body of the nugent article (see blockquote below). (And if the lede was a BLP violation, the body surely is too, but it remains) That quote misses the other statement Nugent made at the same event where he called Obama a Chimpanzee. There may be a case that this should not be in the lede, because of recentism, etc, but it was in no way a BLP violation. (Although the more reliable sources already used in the article should have been used in the lede section). Also agree that removal ignoring the RFC, and not mentioning it here, is very questionable, but does not rise to the level of requiring any admin action against AQFK. (Although the fact that AQFK explicitly !voted for removal in the RFC, and its pretty clear he is in the minority viewpoint in that RFC, but he removed it anyway... hrm, seems iffy).

In a January 2014 interview at a Las Vegas hunting and outdoor trade show, recorded by Guns.com, Nugent was recorded stating, "I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America".[1] After being chastised by Rand Paul, Nugent apologized for his "subhuman mongrel" statement.[2]

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Whitaker, Morgan (January 22, 2014). "Ted Nugent calls Obama 'subhuman mongrel'".
  2. ^ Shabad, Rebecca (21 February 2014). "Nugent apologizes for calling Obama 'subhuman mongrel'". thehill.com. News Communications, Inc. Retrieved 22 February 2014.

Removal against consensus[edit]

Hi. Today User:Lightbreather has repeatedly removed some material against consensus.[5][6] The latter removal was after three editors (including me) objected to removal.[7][8][9] So, it seems like a pretty simple situation. User:Lightbreather claims that the removal was kosher because a different sentence at a different article was removed, which kind of seems irrelevant to me (the other article is currently the subject of an ArbCom case). I tried to make reasoned arguments, but they mattered not. A block for LB would be very helpful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All of my reasons are given in the very long (sorry, but not all on my account) discussion of yesterday (27 March 2014) "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, and in the 20-27 March 2014 "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. However, I will be happy to answer any other questions that arise. In a nutshell, IMO: Anythingyouwant misrepresents the conditions under which the material in question was added to the article, and the "consensus." I suggested that he start an RfC on the subject, but instead, he started this. Again, I will be happy to stop what I'm working on to answer any questions that arise. Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have a question that arises. Is it not correct that you reverted against the express objections of three editors at the article in question?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A block for the 'contributors' who see Wikipedia as an outlet for pro-gun propaganda entirely unsupported by legitimate academic sources would be even more helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for not objecting to my request, Andy. Of course, when describing a political issue at Wikipedia, reliable sources that describe the opposing positions are necessary, and can be used without Wikipedia endorsing any of it, which I think is the case here. Unless our goal is to use Wikipedia for stamping out descriptions of one side of the issue, while promoting the other. Anyway, this is simply a case of ignoring policy in order to revert against consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of ignoring policy, I note that the assertion regarding Brazil in the disputed text is entirely unsourced - I suspect because the actual source for this appears to suggest that the "pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil" was unlikely to be understood in a Brazilian context, having been created by outsiders with little understanding of local issues - and of course misrepresenting sources would be against policy. And for the record, your 'thanks' are premature - I do object to your attempt to get someone blocked for supporting policies - which of course overrule any supposed 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Andy, the removed phrase simply says that the fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership "is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States." If you believe that that violates any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, then I am dismayed by the incredible degree to which you are wrong. Anyway, you've only objected to one of four supporting sources, which says: "NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home". In what universe does that not support the statement in the text? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to slant the POV impact of its political articles, but in that case I suggest we get an additional policy written up, such as WP:Ignore all liberal bias. I emphatically deny any suggestion of promoting any POV at Wikipedia, but plead guilty to tilting against bias where I see it at this website. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, the 'removed phrase' includes a reference which quotes Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Culture (I'd missed that it actually named the source - sorry). What it fails to do is indicate that the quote is cherry-picked, and intentionally misleading, as noted by FiachraByrne on Talk:Gun control some time back [10] - the source states that "...the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler" - making the claim that the Hitler poster indicated a 'fear-of-tyranny motivation for supporting gun ownership' in Brazil less than credible. Such cherry-picking of misleading quotes is however par for the course for the pro-gun lobby. Still, I'm sure you can live with that since the POV being pushed isn't 'liberal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Grump, I never I thought I'd hear "sorry" from you. The removed sentence obviously did not claim anything about Brazil or anything about Hitler. You're making me sorry that I ever logged on to this website, and I'm sure ArbCom will soon complete what you have started. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you actually look at diffs before posting them on ANI in future. The first diff you linked [11] clearly and unambiguously includes the quotation "[T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism" as part of a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That quote is in a footnote. The removed sentence says nothing about Brazil or about Hitler, and if anyone would like to shorten the quote in the footnote then it's fine by me. I'm not going to be the one to shorten it, because it's a perfectly sensible and honest quote, and it doesn't imply anything that isn't true according to that reliable source. I honestly don't see any way that that footnoted source does not support the removed sentence of text, which is so obviously correct that I would be flabbergasted at this discussion were it not Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, no. We don't 'shorten' footnotes that intentionally misrepresent sources - we remove them entirely, along with the supposed 'reference' they are supporting, as contrary to both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of encyclopaedic integrity - as Lightbreather had done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Are we allowed to say "bullshit" here, or is that only allowed for the regulars? Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you this evening Grump. Have a wonnnnnnderful evening, y'hear?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Our article text did not mention Brazil. The source does. Its one of four (?) sources used, all which clearly document that argument being used outside the US. If you disagree, and think the argument is restricted exclusively to the US, find a source saying so. Otherwise take your WP:OR elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out that sources are being intentionally misrepresented is not 'original research' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Two of the three editors (Anythingyouwant and Gaijin42) who objected to "the sentence" being removed are parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Andy is also a party to the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you popped up User:Bbb23, perhaps you could clear something up for me. Does the ArbCom case cover Gun Politics in the United States or not? Had any of us thought that it did, we would have insisted that Lightbreather be a party. Maybe the case only covers those editors at that article who get in LB's way?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An Australian, pro-control source, also used as a reference, dedicated to the topic of control says "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany". And then proceeds to give several examples of the argument being made in Australia. The statement is 100% indisputable, reliably sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A simple question: was the quote you mention selected (a) to accurately reflect the opinions of the author regarding the significance of the 'security against tyranny' argument in the Australian firearms regulation debate, or was it (b) selected to bolster claims that the NRAs argumentum ad Hitlerum has international support? Before answering, I suggest you read the source concerned... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a simple question for you Grump. Do you think that the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has been entirely confined to the United States? Hmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That has precisely nothing to do with the issue I have raised - that sources were being intentionally misrepresented in the material Lightbreather removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution[edit]

I propose that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is warned to stop misrepresenting sources and stop forum shopping, with a clear message that any more of this will result in escalating blocks.

Everyone else seems to be keeping it mainly cool in a heated debate, and at least trying to stick to discussing actual content and actual sources. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - He has just inserted the "international" material back into the Gun politics in the U.S. article again. [12] Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, with the support of 4 out of five editors at talk page, and with additional language intended to address the objection from AndyTheGrump, though I doubt it will.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously, I emphatically deny misrepresenting anything. Wikipedia will either decide to handle controversial political subjects neutrally, or it will inevitably be a propaganda machine, and my choice would be for the former instead of the latter. Also, please note AndyTheGrump's statement below: "I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation...." I oppose any and all misrepresentations in this Wikipedia article, or any other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you oppose. But since you are (a) the subject of the proposal and (b) not an administrator, your opposition is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am often irrelevant. Mine is not the only irrelevant response to your proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lightbreather has SERIOUS ownership issues and should be topic banned. She has been to ANI so many times due to this, that it is surprising that something hasn't been done by now. --Sue Rangell 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

To be fair, I should point out that I've not stated that it was Anythingyouwant who was responsible for the initial misrepresentation. As for 'propaganda machines' though, the evidence is entirely clear that the whole absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum regarding firearms law is been driven by a partisan lobby allied with the NRA. It is also clear that their arguments are entirely unsupported by academic historiography, and are cobbled together - in a a "cherry-picked", "decontextualised" and "tendentious" manner, as one academic critic noted [13] - not in the interests of promoting understanding that particular period in German history, but in order to influence a debate in another place and time entirely. That is propaganda. 15:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence that was blatantly removed against consensus said absolutely nothing about Hitler, and that sentence was manifestly supported by its four footnotes, as much as any sentence at Wikipedia could possibly be. Andy, why is it not possible to stick to the issue at hand?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The sentence removed was referenced with footnotes which used the words 'Hitler' twice and 'Nazi' three times. Hiding pro-NRA propaganda in footnotes doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. And 'consensus' cannot overrule policy which states that references must not misrepresent sources. That is the issue at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Andy, you have objected to one of four footnotes. But much more than one of four footnotes was removed against consensus. As to that one footnote, you have not disputed that it is a reliable source. Whether it is being misrepresented depends upon what the footnoted sentence says, and in the present case the footnoted sentence merely states what should be extremely obvious to any neutral observer: that the tyranny argument is not entirely confined to the United States. This is not rocket science here, and at some point we have to (gasp!!!!!!!) look at the facts. More generally, are you saying that policy forbids Wikipedia from saying that the NRA (and others) have used a Hitler argument? Can you not see that describing "propaganda" is not the same as propagandizing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. This will be my last comment, so feel free to have the last word, block me, ban me, or anything you want. I felt obligated to bring attention to the recent defiance of the consensus policy, even though I had no illusions that ANI would lift a finger. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, per Godwin's law, it is more or less inevitable that Hitler will eventually come up in debates about firearms regulation. That does not however indicate that NRA propaganda on the issue has any serious credibility elsewhere - and cherry-picking sources to try to prove otherwise, in the absence of sources which actually state as such, is synthesis, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. The simple facts are that it is only in the U.S. that 'Nazi' analogies with firearms regulation have had any serious traction - elsewhere, as the Australian and 'Brazil' sources make clear, such arguments are either seen as irrelevant, treated with derision, or (as in Australia [14] "the Jewish community finds [it] repugnant and offensive, and totally rejects the comparison") called out as the grossly offensive abuse of the memory of the Holocaust for propaganda purposes that they clearly are. The sources are being cited to support a claim that the facile 'Nazi' analogy has traction elsewhere, without noting that the sources cited make it entirely clear that the analogy has been treated with utter contempt. Misrepresentation of sources is contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Mentioning the fact that the propaganda exists does not violate any policies. --Sue Rangell 18:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A bizarre post by Anythingyouwant on my talk page[edit]

I'm astounded that anyone could seriously think that the statement regarding dueling by Anythingyouwant was anything other than sheer hyperbole expressing his frustration at the situation. It may well have been inappropriate hyperbole, to be sure, but Andy's comment below was just as inappropriate a response to it, and the continuing commentary below just kept pouring gasoline on the fire. As the heat:light ratio has exceeded solar levels here, this is being closed, with seafood dinners being delivered to both Anythingyouwant and AndyTheGrump for making an inappropriate use of hyperbole and for hyperbolically reacting to it, respectively, and then for both of them continuing to escalate the situation below. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 31 March 2014 (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.

Evidently, Anythingyouwant seems to think that it would be preferable for disputes on Wikipedia to be resolved by resort to firearms: "I assure you that if duelling were still legal, I would be seriously considering it" [15] Since such methods of resolution are not only against policy, but illegal (and given the fact that we are separated by the Atlantic ocean, impossible), I have to assume that the purpose of this post was to intimidate me, rather than for any other purpose - and accordingly, I call for Anythingyouwant to be indefinitely blocked for behaviour entirely incompatible with both Wikipedia policy and elementary standards of human behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I explained to Grump: "there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one." Funny how he left that part out. Funny how he also left out his previous statement that I am a "patronising little troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I have often found Anythingyouwant's editing and commentary problematic. But I can't get worked up about that one. As you say, Andy, there's an ocean between you. How could you possibly be intimidated? Bishonen | talk 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
Actually, that is an assumption on my part - I have no means of ascertaining where Anythingyouwant actually is. In any case, it is clearly written in a manner intended to intimidate, since it can serve no other purpose. And yes, it is intimidating to have fellow contributors suggest that they would like to kill me. If this isn't 'problematic', I have to ask what is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
At this point, since it appears that Anythingyouwant is intent on continuing his intimidatory behaviour, I shall withdraw from this discussion, and contact the WMF directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever. I don't want to kill them either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as crocodile angst? At worst, this is an accusation of cowardice, which isn't very nice.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Crocodile angst. Yes, apparently there is. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • comment: The dueling statement goes over the line. What if the statement had been "I assure you that if assault were legal, I would be seriously considering it"? I think it would have been seen as intimidating. At the very least, Anythingyouwant should be warned express to their views in less threatening and more civil ways. I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
An invitation to duel never resulted in any physical harm to anyone, unless both adults consented to it. Since this point seems not to be well-understood, I now realize that making the comment was a mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: I think much of this disagreement arises out of the ARBCOM delays in releasing a proposed decision for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control which was scheduled to be posted on February 12th. Granted that there are almost always delays, but waiting an additional seven weeks for a decision that might involve some topic bans means that editing in this topic area is still contentious. I'd like to recommend admins wait until a proposed decision is posted by ARBCOM to act but it's still unclear when that will occur. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And in the meantime making violent threats against editors is okay? — goethean 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone seriously believes this is headed toward a pistols-at-dawn situation. (Besides, knowing Anythingyouwant, I think if anyone agreed to a duel with him, he'd immediately launch into an interminable, legalistic argument about the technicalities of the code duello until all of the seconds got fed up and went home). It's more like: if we've gotten to the point that one editor is yearning for the opportunity to duel another, then we're waaaay past battleground behavior—the editing environment on these articles is broken and adult supervision is required. MastCell Talk 19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be illegal" (above) is pretty bad. It doesn't devolve to "I do not want to kill you Andy, as that would be wrong in so many ways" but more toward "I would kill you if it was legal (and thus I could get away with it)" which carries the strong implication of "I wish you were dead". That's a pretty hurtful thing to say to someone as well as inflammatory. Is the dispute really that important? Let's not talk like this, people. Perhaps a nice hot steaming cup of Please Be Quiet is in order for the offending editor?
On the bright side, invitation to duel at least indicates that the person considers one a social equal and fellow gentleperson. If he considered you a mere yeoman or townsman he would presumably just threaten to thrash you with his cane or trample you with his horse. Herostratus (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The illegality is not the only reason why I do not want to kill Andy. But I have already apologized for mentioning duels at his talk page (see above at 18:47, 29 March 2014), so maybe we can move on now? I will even forgive Andy for calling me a "patronising little troll", if he would forgive me for mentioning that a duel might be satisfying in the present case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • May I suggest you duel with pillows, or something equally undangerous. Perhaps a virtual duel in an online game such as Wii Sports Resort might be suitable. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Banjos. Writegeist (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Handbags at dawn? Guy (Help!) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Its an encyclopedia! We don't invite others to "duel" in the manner done here, nor to continue to insult and taunt them: ("there was no threat whatsoever. I seriously doubt that you would accept a duel, even if it were still legal, and even if I challenged you to one"...according to Anythingyouwant.)--MONGO 22:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As an honest person, I get tired of being relentlessly accused by AndyTheGrump of being a propagandist, a patronising little troll, etc, etc. I overreacted by mentioning duels at his talk page. I did not suggest that he would be a coward to not accept a duel, only that if I did propose one (which I didn't), then he could simply decline, with no injury to anyone. People who generously dish out heaping portions of condemnation should understand how offensive it is to the recipients, and such assumptions of bad faith have no place at an encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps...how do you think we proceed now? Is an interaction ban needed?--MONGO 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Both should behave as if there's an interaction ban in effect, because if something like this comes up again, that would probably be the result. Jehochman Talk 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I will. That is why I left the gun control article last year, and have not been back to edit that article since (I explained this to Andy today at his talk page). I guess ArbCom will address what's been happening today at Gun politics in the United States (that's why I started this section at ANI).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No wonder people laugh and joke about the petty politics and buffoonery that runs rampant behind WP's façade. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it seems clear that Wikipedia admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom[edit]

...though given their apparent inability to make any progress whatsoever on the 'gun control' case (now almost seven weeks overdue), I would have little expectation of it being dealt with appropriately there, either. Frankly though I am almost beyond caring - it is becoming more and more obvious that this whole farcical enterprise is little more than an exercise in vanity publishing, combined with the worst aspects of 'social networking', and with a generous dollop of corrupt and contemptible POV-pushing of the most overt kind (paid and unpaid - though personally I find the latter more obnoxious, as paid editors at least have the excuse that they have to earn a living somehow), all carried out without the slightest concern for the readers, the only legitimate justification for the existence (and charitable status) of the encyclopaedia. In such circumstances, the most honest course of action has to be to leave the whole festering heap of semi-literate, factually inaccurate and biased beyond all hope of redemption 'articles' to the POV-pushing drones, clueless Google-miners and fancruft-shovelling subteens, in the hope that readers will come to recognise sooner exactly what it is, and look for 'knowledge' elsewhere, where it might actually be compiled by people with honest intentions, and with the slightest clue regarding what they are writing about.

And for the record, Anythingyouwant's assumption that (were duelling hypothetically legal), I would turn down his hypothetical offer is at least open to question, given that (assuming said hypothetical duel permitted the challenged party to chose weapons, as is the custom in civilised countries), I would have to seriously (though hypothetically) consider the relative merits of having the opportunity to (hypothetically) run him through with a sword against the risks involved, and might well consider it worth the chance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter has already been brought to the attention of ArbCom at the Workshop page. For the record, User:Lightbreather has again deleted material against the consensus of four editors at the talk page of Gun politics in the United States. The deleted text is indicated by strikethrough: "Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere." There was no attempt by LB to rephrase, to compromise, to save the footnoted reliable sources, or anything of the kind. This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Then stop waging 'jihad' (interesting turn of phrase), stop impugning motives, and stop disregarding policies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't expect you'd notice that the stricken sentence is exactly what you asked for today, in between condemnations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I asked for nothing other than that policy be complied with, and sources not be misrepresented. As for 'footnoted reliable sources', it has already been amply demonstrated that the quotes in at least two were cherry-picked to 'prove' a particular POV, with complete disregard for the broader context which indicated the contrary. Under such circumstances, policy requires their removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The "POV" in the stricken sentence is that the tyranny argument gets little traction outside of the U.S. Last I checked, that was your "POV" as well, and also the "POV" of the cited sources. Anyway, as suggested above by other editors, I will do my best to not interact with you anymore, Grump, and I hope you will reciprocate. Nothing good can come of it, and we both end up looking like complete buffoons. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
None of this "duel" nonsense would be welcome in a "civilised country," save in the context of your therapist's office. 76.72.23.170 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
"This is what happens when jihad is waged, motives are impugned, and policies are disregarded." I know Anything thinks that I'm disregarding policy (I disagree), but waging a jihad? Dang! Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential section heading issues[edit]

I changed the heading of the previous subsection from "Since it seems clear that Wikipedia admins are unwilling to deal with Anythingyouwant's intimidatory behaviour here, I should probably consider taking the matter to ArbCom" to "Further discussion" citing that it was a more neutral section heading, and didn't contain an assertion embedded within it. Also it brought in line with policies. AndyTheGrump (who worded the initial heading) reverted my change. I feel that my change was correct and consistent with and directed by policies and guidelines, and that the version that it was reverted to is a misuse of headings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And your doing this is entirely unrelated to the fact that you have been a leading proponent of gun-lobby propagandising on Wikipedia has nothing to do with this, is it? In any case, your removal made a complete nonsense of my following sentence. And no, saying that Anythingyouwant was involved in 'intimidatory behaviour' isn't an assertion - it is a statement of fact, as acknowledged by his (half-hearted) apology for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledged no such thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So the claim regarding 'sincere apologies' [16] you made at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop wasn't 'sincere' after all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I sincerely apologized for using the word "duel" at your talk page, I do not believe you were intimidated in the least, nor was that my intention, and yet we see the fuss it has caused. My only intention was to convey to you how upsetting your accusations and insults are, but I did it in a suboptimal manner. Anyway, as campaigns of demonization are often successful at Wikipedia, I expect you will be getting the results you have been striving for. In the mean time, can you please leave me alone? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to be 'left alone', I suggest you refrain from posting intimations of violence on talk pages in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I consider character assassination just as serious as physical violence, and you have done a lot more than intimating as far as that goes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So you are no longer denying that your post intimated physical violence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm done here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I collapsed the section above; Andy reverted. I've got no dog in this hunt, and I request someone else close this and be done with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2014 (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.

Update[edit]

With no support at the talk page of gun politics in the United States, and with opposition from five editors at that talk page (me, Gaijin42, Sue Rangell, North8000, and Darkness Shines), LB has declined to restore any of the following material that she has deleted multiple times against consensus (the deleted text is indicated by strikethrough and I previously quoted it above):

This deleted sentence is very obviously neutral, well-sourced, relevant, and concise. LB is not a party to the present ArbCom case, so I disagree with the reluctance of administrators here to deal with this issue until the ArbCom case is complete. In any event, assuming I am still around after the ArbCom case, I suppose the only option would be an RFC of some sort, if no action is forthcoming here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think most editors are simply going to allow Lightbreather to have her way with the article. I know I am. I am throwing in the towel. She has made the last 100 edits or so, and ignores consensus. She has been to ANI many many times for this sort of thing. A topic ban is fully in order, yet nobody wants to do anything due to ARBCOM. --Sue Rangell 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at page Whoniverse[edit]

The IP 41.132.48.255 is being extremely disruptive in a content dispute over at this page. Their actions include:

Notes: if anyone decides to do something about this, then a extended semi-protection of the page would be most effective since this user's IP changes regularly. G S Palmer (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm a little puzzled by this posting, given that the IP is already under a 48 hour block for edit warring (his second in a week; G S Palmer was also blocked for edit warring on the article earlier this week - they were at AN3 over the same article in mid-March, but were both warned). There is already administrator intervention, and there's no need to semi-protect the article if the single individual disruptively using an IP can be handled individually. I do not know if the IP will work within consensus processes after his block expires or if he will continue behaving disruptively, but it had been my intent to continue to monitor and hand out escalating blocks as appropriate to anyone who persisted in edit warring.

    However, I don't have strong feelings about this, and it's already been quite a time suck, so if another admin wants to weigh in or take it on, feel free. :)

    Because the IP is blocked, he cannot speak in his own defense here. Needless to say, he disagrees substantially with User:G S Palmer's account above. I considered unblocking him to allow him to participate and might still, but since this section is relatively quiet thought perhaps just reproducing his response to G S Palmer's notice might suffice. I'm collapsing it because it's long. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
the IP's response
Yeah, real clever to do that while I can't edit for 48 hours, and then act as though you gave me a chance to reply there. The only disruptive editor is you yourself, for constantly adding unsourced material, your relentless reverting, deleting properly sourced material, and arrogantly refusing to even look at Wikipedia Policy, assuming you know best. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually read what you wrote? You reported me for being disruptive, for asking you yo use Wikipedia Policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR etc? And you reported me for an "outright lie", then linked to the page which shows I was right? And I a the one who has made hostile edits? Have you actually read some of the stuff you wrote in edit summaries, and on the discussion page there? Hopefully, since I can't reply there for 48 hours, someone sensible can actually read all the unpleasantness you have brought to that article and its discussion page, and my attempts in vain to try and explain why your OR article can not be used for Wikipedia. And the only reason I copy-pasted Wikipedia Policy on that discussion page was because you refused to edit articles using Wikipedia Policy. After I had repeatedly asked you not to keep adding unsourced material, referring to Policy, your response was that you refused to read the Policies, and yet you somehow 'knew' that I was "interpreting them overly harshly". I constantly added links, which you stated outright on your own talk page that you were not going to read. So I copied them word-for-word on the discussion page to show they're not "my harsh interpretations", they're Wikipedia Policy. And then you continued to edit the way you wanted regardless. So it was a mistake on my part to copy-paste the Policies there, because I naively assumed that it may change your believing that adding reams of unsourced material, and making artciles out of whole cloth may change. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

[25]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way you complain about me removing your unsourced sections, yet you constantly remove this link [26], [27], [28], [29], and many more... You also remove this: [30]. And you delete this tag here for something that is irrelevant to the subject of the article [31], where in this source coes it state what you are using it as a reference for? [32], guess you still haven't read OR [33]. The thing is ALL of these(and more) have been brought up on this discussion page again and again and again, and yet you dismiss it out of hand and keep removing RS, adding unsourced material, using sources to "reference" things that the sources never actually say, and adding irrelevant material, such as your quote from Survival, which thankfully even Mezigue said was utterly pointless being in the article. If you had actually tried to read Wikipedia Policies, or engage civilly in the discussion then this would have been avoided. However, you had your own vision of "what the article should be", and nothing, least of all actual Wikipedia Policy will convince you that your version is not up to Wikipedia standards. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you will keep an eye on the page to make certain that the situation doesn't escalate, that would be fine. The reason that I brought this here was because I worried that once the IP's latest block expired the whole thing would start over again. G S Palmer (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I intend to, User:G S Palmer. If the whole thing starts over, editors who edit war will be given escalating blocks. It doesn't help that you do not come to this with clean hands yourself. Please read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and help avoid muddying the issue. I would suggest that when he returns you ignore your past history or dispute and talk to him about the issues that he raises as if he were somebody else entirely. --Moonriddengirl

(talk) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. The article Whoniverse was a rambling, unsourced OR mess. [34].

I posted this [35], and received this response [36].

I edited, making notes. I tried to include others [37], however [38].

So I started editing, leaving notes [39], and still inviting others to discuss it. After some time, I had corrected the article. Was it perfect? Not at all. But it was a first step.

Then, after much editing and discussion, User:G S Palmer appeared.:[40]. This after a long discussion which he chose to ignore.[41].

I tried to clear the air [42].

But User:G S Palmer was having none of that. I tried bringing up the topic more than once [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] but User:G S Palmer would have none of it.

He has repeatedly removed a WP:RS...[50]...such as at [51], [52], [53].

He removed a valid properly sourced section [54], written by Tat Wood of [55], [56], [57], not to mention [58].

And yet he has no problem adding [59](removing another tag, and note his explanation. That's in the first paragraph).

He removes tags for sources which never mention the article's subject at all [60]

He deceptively moved a RS which was merely usage of the term, and never described a thing [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whoniverse&diff=601656112&oldid=601655880].

He never bothered reading any Wikipedia Policy. [61]

But that's no surprise as [62].

(The only reason I pasted Wikipedia Policy on the discussion page was to try and show him where he was going wrong.)

By the way, I brought this up before he posted this here..[63]

The problem is that the article is still a mess of OR, SYNTHESIS and Unreliable Sources, And of course the fact that he use Lofficier's WP:RS in the first paragraph, yet anyone who actually Lofficier's words sees that Lofficier says almost the exact opposite to what User:G S Palmer states, then falsely claims Lofficier as a WP:RS for. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but these points aren't very well backed up. This edit ("I tried to clear the air") wasn't even one of yours. I also don't see what point you are trying to prove with the quote from my talk page; it doesn't seem to say anything about whether I would read policy or not. G S Palmer (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It shows my repeated attempts to discuss things. And the relentless dismissal out of hand by you in particular of any sort of discussion. Just as you have now once again removed a RS that adds NPOV and balance to the still OR article. [64]. After [65].

As for the link, I'm not sure how that happened. I meant to add [66]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of facts[edit]

Short answer, as ever, is "no." Writ Keeper  09:30, 30 March 2014 (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.

To: The Administrators Wikipedia English language project "en.wikipedia.org'

Sirs

Kindly be advised and take notice of fact that the Registrar of your domain name(s), M/s Mark Monitor Inc, is not replying to repeated communications sent to them by the Top Level domain administrators concerning the a) libels against and b) impersonation of the "India Against Corruption". These notices have been issued by the Internet Domain administrators to enforce Terms of Use for registration of Wikipedia domain names, especially anti-abuse and impersonation clauses therein.

The impugned article, which can be easily viewed in India, is "paid content" written by a paid editor to promote various impersonators who are using "India Against Corruption" name, copyright and trademarks to solicit votes as candidates for ongoing Parliamentary elections under election tickets of Aam Aadmi Party. The continuance of these articles on your website is in violation of India's laws and also US laws, and constitutes "lobbying" and is a direct interference by foreigners and foreign agencies in India's democracy and India's democratic processes. The concerned WMF trustee from India is now well apprised of the dispute over this article and the public domain information of rampant abuse by Indian PR agencies to write fake articles on Wikipedia with connivance of involved Wikipedia administrators [67].

India Against Corruption therefore requires that the Administrators of this website/domain "en.wikipedia.org" take immediate steps, and not later than thirty six hours in any case, to comply with India's laws in addition to US laws, to disable publication of the impugned article within the territory of India, where elections are in progress and a model code of conduct is notified, promulgated and in force. The continuance of these paid promotional contents on Wikimedia Foundation servers, and in violation of WMF Terms of Use, for purpose of lobbying and influencing the outcome of India's elections by foreigners is a violation of the Hosting privileges accorded to Internet Intermediaries in India

Please also note that India Against Corruption has not initiated any "legal" proceedings against Wikipedia /WMF, and this notice of facts is not a legal threat, so kindly do not assume this notice to be a legal threat.

The IAC complaint to the Internet authorities is an administrative remedy invoked by IAC after the paid editor stopped participation, in Mediation, to discuss his edits, his sources or the unimpeachable counter evidence / sources IAC provided to rebut his malafide content and sources, thereby causing the Mediator to close the Mediation for reason of non-participation by Wikipedia community. IAC is now also in possession of emails from the authors of the reliable sources cited by the paid editor, which disclaim and decry the usage of their scholarly books on Wikipedia to malign our body. The 2 OVERSIGHT requests made thereafter by IAC for the defamation/libel and privacy issues have not been replied to by Wikipedia's Administrators either.

Finally, please note that we shall be using this IP address for future communications, if any. We advise you to kindly seek opinion of the General Counsel of Wikimedia before again taking any unilateral hostile actions against "India Against Corruption" as was done in the past.

"HRA1924" for India Against Corruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1640:5:0:0:0:3:BA (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC) |}

In response to the above, see Arkell v. Pressdram. [68] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Private Eye lost eventually [69] admitting "Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage of the proceedings.". Landirenzo (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The source you cite (a forum, so probably not RS) seems to say that they won. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Au Contraire. Snopes is as reliable an authority on exposing internet hoaxes as Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia :-). "nasw.org" is not a legal reporting site. Nonetheless, Mr.Pressdram verifiably paid up, Mr.Arkell took the money and went away, leaving Private Eye to gripe and spin doctor the sour grapes version cited.Landirenzo (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-close factual note: the Snopes thread concludes by noting that according to Adam MacQueen's 'Private Eye: The First 50 Years', although Arkell proceeded, the case fell apart and Pressdram received costs (Pressdram is a company, not an individual, it is the publisher of record of Private Eye). When they say that Mr. Arkell did eventually comply, they mean that he did eventually go away. This interpretation is supported by Jack of Kent. I don't know of any reliable authority for the claim that Arkell won, and it seems hardly plausible that the running joke would exist if he had, since it would essentially be libellous. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


When one says Pressdram "received" costs, it means that costs were awarded against Pressdram. If Pressdram had won, it would say Pressdram was awarded costs. Anyhow, this letter is a hoax. 2A01:430:1A:0:0:0:0:217 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (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.

Block requested[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 31 March 2014 (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.

An I.P. editor 99.68.24.85 (talk · contribs) has made ten random vandalism edits in the last half hour. Trackinfo (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Hahc21 (talk · contribs). Vandalism reports are normally filed at AIV. Doc talk 07:42, 30 March 2014 (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.

Suspicious edits[edit]

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.

Resolved: Blocked by User:Smalljim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

86.26.247.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making suspicious edits. This editor is adding causes of death to biographies. He is doing so at such a very high rate that it is unlikely that these edits are researched. Some are blatant vandalism (for example). I suspect all of these edits are just vandalism, but since it is not obviously so, I'm reporting here instead of at WP:AIV. Slideshow Bob (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.147.28.111 for the background to this.  —SMALLJIM  15:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked a few of them and they were verifiable. I didn't look into the sockpuppet issue. I restored one edit with a citation, then decided not to do more, since I'm not sure the info belongs in infoboxes. In the case of Israel Keyes, the info (died by suicide) was already present and cited in the article text. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Added: you're right that the Carl Berner one is dubious at best, though Isaac Asimov died of AIDS at a rather advanced age, apparently contracted from a blood transfusion during surgery. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2014 (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.

Severe canvasing and meat puppetry on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence[edit]

Concerning Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friendly_artificial_intelligence. This is not directed at any one editor, but referring to an unfolding process of canvasing on this deletion discussion page. The situation is becoming increasingly convoluted due to the calls on social media to help the page from those relevant to it and related to the poster. In a nutshell: the topic is mathematically impossible, which is why it has, in the years it was presented on the Web informally, and on this encyclopedia, had no technical peer-reviewed theory or proof in the literature. And the only two sources that are available are from a non-technical source that just happens to be published as a book of essays by Springer, which is easy to confuse at first glance with the journalistic quality areas of that organiztion. This was all pointed out and it was requested that notable sources be provided, but not a single valid citation in this now overlong discourse on the page has been brought up. The reason this isn't going to happen is because these sources don't exist, which any administrator will quickly be able to verify. I am posting this here because of the obvious canvasing and puppetry that is occuring, and that there have been claims made of bad faith. I do not wish the page to devolve from the focus on the topic any further and strongly believe administrative intervention is needed. Thanks in advance. --Lightbound talk 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The discussion has become a bit long winded but is on topic and well within civility standards, surprisingly so. I don't yet see any puppetry, although I would agree that monitoring is a good idea. COI editing isn't against policy, although it is good to note for the discussion. At this stage, there isn't anything else to do. I have faith the closing admin can weigh the discussion and the COI in order to determine a consensus. If a wave of new editors comes, they can be tagged as SPA and likely the closing admin will greatly (or completely) discount their !votes. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that COI is much of an issue at AfD, as opposed to article editing, where NPOV needs to be maintained. On the other hand, AfD is really all about policies and opinions, and if a COI commenter doesn't have policies to support their opinion, the closer is unlikely to put much weight on their comments. If there are no reliable sources, the article is unlikely to be retained, no matter who expressed what opinion about it.

      On the other hand, it's generally counter-productive to have one editor respond to every differing opinion with more commentary, as it creates the impression of hounding and of attempting to squealch further commentary. Best, instead, to allow everyone to have their say and leave it to the closer to put the weight where it belongs. BMK (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on that, Don't bludgeon the process some time ago. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(moved here from unnecessary new thread:)

I've been extremely civil and on policy over the long course of the discussion on the AfD page for "Friendly AI". I've asked for assistance from admins early on, and we managed to resolve some of the issues. The page was canvased and the responses became very long as a result. A lot of people came in treating it as a vote. Things managed to settle for a while. However, now, an admin by the name of Silence has come in and I'm not certain that they are acting in the best interest of consensus. I was dissapointed by being attributed as making statements I did not make, which were quoted and presented as if I had said them. This seems unduly difficult coming from an administrator, and I'm concerned about balance. Also, some of my comments were "accidentally deleted" as well, but I've still assumed good faith. But it is becoming more difficult. I've now asked if we could keep from addressing editors and stay on point. I also very politely suggested that we are at an impasse and to not engage in simple contradiction to help with brevity. Others are now ignoring the AfD status and attempting to cull the page contents to sway the AfD decision. I'm not sure if that is balanced, but it would be grand if several other eyes could help smooth things out. Thanks in advance. --Lightbound talk 10:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC

Raised a community ban proposal for Az-507 at AN[edit]

As Az-507 (talk · contribs) has been brought here several times recently I thought it appropriate to mention WP:AN#Community ban proposal for Az-507. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Offensive IP[edit]

Block requested, block delivered. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please review the editing of 74.62.92.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Offensive edit summaries that need hiding (again) and attacks on editors. Blocked by Dougweller for the same stuff back in January. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Block the IP, I don't give a shit. [...redacted...] 74.62.92.20 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ask, and thou shalt receive. (3 months, if anyone cares, given the last was a month, with no apparent conflict?) WilyD 12:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This has been an editor that has had extensive problems with multiple editors. He comes back everynow and again and leaves me fanmail. He jumps Ip's so he'll be back eventually maybe even before the block expires but the behaviors doin't change so it won't matter they will end up blocked either way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2014 (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.

Are blogs allowed?[edit]

Wrong venue for something that doesn't require administrative actions. Please discuss at the article's talk page first. If that doesn't result in consensus you may want to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this a case where such a blog would be allowed? [70] 2601:D:9400:5FF:F087:36AB:9F75:FFF6 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article's talk page or WP:RSN and not WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, this isn't really a question for ANI. Just so it looks like we're not passing the buck, though, at a quick glance Youtube is virtually never an acceptable reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Necrothesp (talk · contribs)[edit]

ANI is the point of last resort, not the first. A {{trout}} to the OP for making it the first resort, and also for failing to notify the subject as is required of any posting at ANI. Wikilawyering over the titles of shortcuts aside, this isn't a concern, and if it is it needs to be discussed - substantially - first, elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 31 March 2014 (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.

Necrothesp (talk · contribs) is systematically renaming all baronets from their titles as Sir John Smith, xth Baronet to John Smith, apparently without achieving conesnsus first. I find this extremely petty action, made on an entirely spurious basis. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss this with Necrothesp? Probably not since you didn't even notify them of this thread. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Did Necrothesp (talk · contribs) get consensus before making mass changes? Probably not since I have not seen them discussed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Controversial edits should always be discussed first before taking the issue to this board. And that means if you object to these mass moves you should have tried to convince Necrothesp to undo them. I can see how you may view these moves as disruptive but that doesn't justify reporting another editor here without getting into contact with them first. As to the page moves, the applicable naming conventions state that prefixes like "Sir" should not be included in the article title and per WP:MOSDAB we don't need disambiguations for names of persons when there is only one article with that name. So I can see where Necrothesp is coming from. But on the other hand, the ordinal and peerage like "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond" are supposed to be included in the page name per the naming conventions for nobility.
What does bother me a little though is the speed of Necrothesp's moves. I'm not saying they're automated but 2 page moves per minute is quite an output. That said, I would like to see a response from Necrothesp who has now stopped moving pages. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Nothing controversial or automated here. Just me implementing something (WP:NCPEER) that should have been implemented on these articles long ago. These are peers, not baronets, and the same conventions do not apply as clearly stated in the naming convention. -- 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consensus. Maybe if he bothers to actually read the longstanding naming convention (WP:NCPEER #3) before commenting, User:Barney the barney barney may care to apologise for his accusations of "petty" and "spurious". I wait with baited breath. Incidentally, I didn't make "mass changes". I count fourteen! This seems to be a simple case of one editor not liking a naming convention and objecting when another editor implements it. It's not like it's a new convention - it's been there for years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are big problems with WP:NCPEER - the first being that baronets aren't peers. The changes are clearly petty, spurious and entirely unnecessary. I do not apologise for speaking the truth. The trouble is that countering a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with acquiescence means that those with pathetic petty agendas will inevitably succeed if those who are unimpressed by such actions do not stand up to them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yup, he really needs to apologise now. This aggressive, accusatory attitude against an editor following the naming conventions (which he is clearly fully aware of, but doesn't agree with) is uncalled for and thoroughly unhelpful. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with WP:NCPEER. It is used by all of us who regularly edit British biographical articles, as a glance at Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom will soon show. The convention quite clearly states that the style for baronets is only to be used when disambiguation is necessary. The fact that baronets are not peers is a complete red herring. We know that. The naming convention doesn't say they are. NCPEER is merely a shortcut. What Barney the barney barney has quite clearly done is disagreed with the naming convention and instead of discussing it in the appropriate place or bringing it up on my talkpage (I would have course have pointed him towards the naming convention), he has brought it here to accuse me in the hope that he will get support from other editors unaware of the naming convention, its longevity, and the fact that it is complied with and supported by other editors who work in this field. When rumbled he has simply upped his aggression level and made further accusations. The whole thing leaves a sour taste, quite frankly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As Necrothesp says, "NCPEER" is just a convenient shortcut; the naming convention (that "Sir" and "nth Baronet" should only be used when necessary for disambiguation) has been stable since August 2005, despite an unpleasant conflict centered, in part, around baronets. The change was conceived and affirmed by editors active in peerage and baronetage articles, and it hasn't been particularly controversial since. Barney, bringing this straight to AN/I was absolutely wrong: this should have been discussed at Necrothesp's talk page, the talk page for NCPEER, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage before coming here. I would caution anyone making these moves (to the less complex page title) to make sure the baronet is the only notable person with that name; once the page has been moved, if someone edits the redirect, the move can't be reversed without administrator intervention. (This was being used tactically in the conflict I mentioned.) For unusual names like "Lowthian Bell", that's a fairly safe assumption, but high-speed renamings do tend to alarm people even if they are within policy. Anyway, the NCPEER guidelines are applicable and of long standing and Necrothesp is, as far as I can tell, complying with them. If you have a problem with those guidelines, take it to the talk page there; this is not an appropriate place for them. I think we're done here. Choess (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2014 (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.

HOBOPOCC keeps deleting Wikpedia talkpage warnings of disruptive editing messages on his talkpage[edit]

HOBOPOCC (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) twice deleted Wikpedia talkpage warnings of disruptive editing messages on his talkpage. I assume in an attempt to with wash his disruptive editing past. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a user to keep warning notifications on their talk page. They are not active blocks or sanctions. Wikipedia:OWNTALK Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How are we to keep track of a patron of disruptive editing of a user then? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Memory. History. Block log. Editing restrictions log. ANI archives. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The talk page history contains a record of past warnings. Further, when a user removes a warning from their talk page, that's seen as a de facto acknowledgment of the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I see; thanks for the info Gaijin42 & C.Fred! In future I will include in the "Subject/headline" of a talkpage message the word "Warning of disruptive editing" to make it easier to keep track of a patron of disruptive editing of a user. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • This article is one of the worst kicks in the balls of WP:NOTNEWS since that whole "Occupy" fiasco--that is, the slew of articles detailing every single citizen and their dog who showed up to protest something. It should be deleted but hey, "it's in the news", no matter what the quality of the source is that says that 100 people showed up in Kherson or Zaporizhia. We can't wait until something becomes actual established knowledge--including photos, videos, and guesswork-maps that make our project into just another citizen activism site. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr sock[edit]

All blocked and added to the SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please block this sockpuppet of User:Altimgamr that has this edit. The user name may be an actual password as he has disclosed it before (see "Edits by User:44thPresidentOfUSA" above in ANI.) Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking that sock. He is also currently online as User:Chevrolet Cruze with edits like this with a fake forum reference and nice edit summary. Bahooka (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Mohammadaas[edit]

TPA revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This vandalism-only account blocked already is repeatedly vandalizing their own talk page. See here and here. M. Caecilius (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If vandalizing own talk page, then there's no question that the user's talk page rights should be revoked if not already revoked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2014 (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.

Roy Harter et al[edit]

Hate to bring this here, but I've already requested help at the BLP and username noticeboards, and asked that Roy Harter be protected, with no responses yet. A network of related and largely vanity articles by COI accounts, with copyright and poor sourcing problems and the possibility of sock or meat puppeting. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Did I do something wrong? I apologize if I did. I'm trying to fix the article by citing references. Thank you. Skinnyman2010 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Three-admin panel requested for closure of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, when the discussion has run.[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Such a move request has been made in the past, and has frequently engendered very spirited discussion. The last time such a discussion went for the full discussion period, it was closed contentiously by a non-admin, leading to an equally contentious move review. In order to head off any shenanigans, I would like to request that a panel of three completely neutral and uninvolved admins (i.e. not having participated in the conduct or closing of any of the previous discussions) convene to monitor this discussion, make sure that it does not veer off-topic, and close it either at the end of seven days (if no extension is sought) or at the end of fourteen days (if an extension is sought). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to close it either by myself or as part of a 3-admin panel. I have no particular interest in the article, other than being a voting-eligible US citizen.--v/r - TP 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks - do you want to see if you can find the other two, or wait for more volunteers? bd2412 T 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The RM just opened today so there is no hurry. We can wait to see who volunteers.--v/r - TP 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd feel comfortable being a member of the 3-admin closing panel. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. One to go. The discussion seems to be quite civil this time around, and I hope it will stay that way, but it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Further to this suggestion of a panel to close this move request - which I support and thank User: BD2412 for thinking of it - I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one female administrator involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of a "maiden" name vs a surname, which is something that might benefit from a more gender-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose gender I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Female administrator" and "closing a move request" immediately brings User:BrownHairedGirl to mind. We often disagree, but she is fair, well-experienced, and has no lack of spine. bd2412 T 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Tvoz/talk 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one administrator with the last name "Clinton" involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of "Clinton", which is something that might benefit from a more "Clinton"-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose last name I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Who knows, maybe BHG is a Clinton. But really, do people with a name really understand it? And it someone in the family is close enough to this, would they not be biased by their existing beliefs which may not reflect what our policies are? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In light of the foregoing, and today's date, I would like all of the administrators participating in the closing panel to affirm that they are not 1) Hillary Clinton; 2) Bill Clinton; 3) any member of the Clinton family; or 4) any member of the Rodham family. However, George Clinton is okay. bd2412 T 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
But what if they're not Bill Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to User: BD2412's suggestion, I would be happy to volunteer to be one of the 3-admin panel. I will not be available to help until Saturday or Sunday, and hope that would be OK.
I have no particular interest in the outcome, beyond a general concern for respecting established policies.
To the best of my knowledge, I am nor related to any members of the Clinton or Rodham family. I am not now, nor have I ever been, called "Hilary" or "Rodham" or "Clinton", or any permutation or combination thereof, either on wiki or in other contexts. This disqualifies me per CombatWombat42's test, so I will leave it to others to decide whether that black ball is fatal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. The proposal was initiated at 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC), so the time for discussion should end at 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC), unless additional time is requested. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BHG. Tvoz/talk 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not, have not ever been, nor intend to be in the future, a member of either the Clinton or Rodham family.--v/r - TP 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That's inconsistent with this evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You've caught me. I am a distant cousin of theirs. Coincidentally, I am also a distant cousin of yours as well.--v/r - TP 01:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Sydney Opera House[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION REQUIRED
The tag is gone. Discussion is occurring at Talk:Sydney Opera House. NE Ent 11:32, 7 April 2014 (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.

  • Summary - Since December 2012 Pigsonthewing has been persistently restoring {{disputed}} to Sydney Opera House despite having no support for this from other editors and without explaining what his actual problems are despite numerous requests from editors to specifically explain his issues. Several editors have removed the tag and/or engaged in discussion and the agreement is that there is no need for such a tag. Pigsonthewing refuses to allow the tag to be removed despite this, but will not actively engage in proposing specific edits that will address his concerns. This is more than a content dispute, it is a pattern of disruptive editing ignoring the opinions of other editors and insisting on his unexplained resolution without compromise.
  • Background - On 3 December 2012 HubbleConstant, a new editor, made his only ever edits to Wikipedia, all at Sydney Opera House. The first completely removed an entire section,[71] and was appropriately reverted by Tbhotch. The second added content not supported by inline citations, which also partially removed a substantial amount of valid content, effectively "breaking" the article (as I later had to explain to Pigsonthewing),[72] and this was subsequently reverted by Ian Rose as uncited.[73] HubbleConstant made his third and final edit, an inappropriate date change,[74] which was also reverted by Ian Rose. Several hours later, Pigsonthewing restored HubbleConstant's edits, including his removal of the substantial amount of text.[75] An hour after that, I reverted Pigsonthewing's change, explaining in my edit summary, "Edit broke section, which is about the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beg" (the end was lost as the edit summary was too long but should have been "beginning in the 1990s".[76] Pigsonthewing reverted that, with his edit summary saying, "see talk; and WP:SOFIXIT". He also started a discussion on the talk page that continues to this day, as well as on my talk page. That discussion is now archived at User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 14#Sydney Opera House.
The problem with HubbleConstant's edits are several, as I explained to Pigsonthewing in the discussion on my talk page. In the first place, they broke the article, inserting a substantial amount of text in the middle of a section, while removing most of a sentence, specifically "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" leaving only "s a design consultant for future work", the final section of the sentence. Secondly, at least some of the sources are invalid. For example, I could not find a copy of the June 1978 Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary, or determine in which of 5 possible copies of The Weekend Australian printed in December 1983 "a major interview" appeared. Thirdly, and probably most significantly, the section of the article that was edited, currently titled Reconciliation with Utzon; building refurbishment, deals with the 1990s attempts at reconciliation with the building's designer in the leadup to significant rfurbishments of the building's interior spaces. This is supported by all of the content in the section, which deals only with the late 1990s and beyond. It does not deal with earlier events; these are dealt with earlier in the article. This was explained to Pigsonthewing very early on.[77][78] However, Pigsonthewing fails to get the point, despite comments by other editors, dismissing their comments and refusing to respond to requests.
Initial discussion ended after my last post on 4 December 2012,[79] so I was surprised on 27 December when I noticed that Pigsonthewing had added the {{disputed}} tag,[80] without further comment. Since then it has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time.[81]