Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Can an admin here please inform User:Daicaregos of the rules on Wikipedia regarding repeatedly editing someone's discussion-page comments against their wishes. I have contacted him, but am now obliged to spend x mins of my life in here (Oh how I love Wikipedia, and pages are loading really slowly for me today as well). It's not the biggest thing ever - and I'm half tempted to leave it - but I do think he needs to be told what the rules actually are here, and he's not listening to anyone else: far from it. I'll try and make it as simple as I can to adjudicate, which means a bit more text than a short list of links...

I created a new section on the discussion page of Welsh people HERE (1), and then realised that someone else had already created a section on exactly the same subject directly above mine, probably while I was actually writing mine (I did have to leave my laptop at one point, as I often do). On noticing the duplicate section about 40 mins later (nobody had commented in between) I simply removed my own heading and merged the two, leaving an explanatory 'edit-note' HERE (2) and a little note in brackets on the discussion page too.

This is important here: all the points I addressed in my merged-section's comment exactly related to the heading-title of the section above: they both were about the problematic word "ethnicity". I then extended my comment to address other factors that relate to 'ethnicity' - Bertrand Russell's own preferred identity and the Welsh language in particular - simply because they were part a large edit that I had attempted, all parts of which fully-relate to the "ethnicity" term/issue in the section's introduction. Daicaregos seems to be suggesting that by covering so much I am somehow not playing by the section-merging rules. It does all fully relate though, and I've never heard of such rules anyway. I think this could be an area he doesn't fully understand, but I don't know.

Basically I thought I did something pretty simple, and fully 'by the book' too.

So two hours later (and without asking me first), Daicaregos reinstated my heading HERE (3), with his own note next to it. I wasn't best pleased, so I reverted his change and told him on his talk page HERE (4) that that is against the rules. I asked him not to do it again and told him why. I basically said he had to contact me about things like that, not take it upon himself to do it. I thought that would be the end of it.

Without contacting me at all, Dai then decided to the same thing again, but as a subheading this time HERE (5). Dai was then strongly addressed by User:Ghmyrtle on his talk page HERE (6) - presumably the whole discussion, similar link to 4. For some reason though, Dai is holding his ground on this, as can be seen if you read it. He's 'wikilawyering' to the nth degree, which I actually think is nothing but a waste of people's time. He is also claiming that he is being wronged somehow in all this, by both myself and ghmyrtle (you'll have to read it). Personally I have no interest in arguing with him about it, so I've started this ANI hoping it will be the less of the two time-draining evils. I certainly don't want to get into an 'edit war', so I've left the discussion page as it stands.

--

I will add that on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without. I've always thought headings should be more formal than the text within need be, and it is highly likely I would have changed the wording of the heading anyway: probably changing the first word "Creepy" to "Misleading" or "Inappropriate overkill in" - though I do genuinely feel encreeped about the matter at hand I'm afraid. Welsh people expressed as a country-wide group cannot be an 'ethnic group' by any logical definition of this seemingly newly-expressed term. There is just too much variation, even amongst the most overtly 'Welsh'. And residents of Anglesey and Cardiff are very different culturally: two very different 'ethnic groups' if you must insist on using the term that way. My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh - and I could also be from Honolulu too for all anyone here knows - and I feel that I and most other Welsh people have been estranged from Wikipedia's 'Welsh People' article. The intro has changed a little, but it's still not up to scratch: there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all, nor enough balance regarding the minority-spoken Welsh language (still currently called "its language"). I personally think a lot of blustering goes on to stop the words United Kingdom, Britain or British ever getting in. But anyway, I didn't actually need to adapt any of my heading text at all, only effectively 'merge' my new section into the one above.

If anyone else is a bit perplexed about Dai's behaviour here (ie why do this?), I think it could be possible that he wants to initiate an admin-involved discussion on the various merits of recent comments and edits made specifically by myself. I would argue that this isn't the correct way to go about that, or the best eventual place for it to happen either. For those who might be interested in pursuing that line, it can be noted that an alternative introduction to the article is actually being worked on, one that will hopefully be acceptable to enough attending people - it rarely gets better than that in these areas I'm afraid.

I think people may appreciate it if this ANI at least could be kept to the case in hand: ie to clearly affirm the editing rules for this regard, which is hopefully all that's needed. I am also happy to discuss my position regarding the UK, sovereignty, Britishness and anything related though - either one.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

PS. I'd like to add that I was unhappy to see the edit-note on me forgetting to sign - calling it a 'wall of text'. I did try to make it easier for someone here, and was prepared to wait a bit. Some people do write more than others - that's life I'm afraid: I don't think it's right to comment negatively on that, an that kind of thing can give the ANI-subject confidence too. I haven't been on Wikpidia for quite a while, am actually quite rusty - and that was no-doubt why I forgot to sign. Matt Lewis (talk)

Ok, clearly nothing's happening in here at least, so can someone just tell this guy he's wrong in here about the discussion-page comment-editing rules, so I can remove my unwanted heading again? I really don't want to 'edit war' over a stupid unwanted section heading: it just may be the thing that finally shrivels my mind. You can then presumably close this thing. There's three people now he hasn't listened to, including an admin. Somebody here could at least just tell him not to revert me again. I'm afraid I'm not going to 'back down' and strike the replaced heading like he wants me to, I think that gives entirely the wrong signal here. I just don't want to do it, and I can see myself tomorrow just reverting him again tbh. Or should I just revert it first and see what happens. I don't know. My head hurts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've put it back.[1]. An admin has already had a word with him, but you might want to give it couple of days before closing. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of complaint: Matt began a new thread at Talk:Welsh people. He subsequently decided to remove the section heading believing it relevant to the previous thread ("..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales...", by User:Ghmyrtle. I wanted to respond to Ghmyrtle's post, rather than to Matt's post (of over 4000 bytes), so I reinstated Matt's original heading. Following discussion at my talkpage, I subsequently preserved Matt's original heading (“Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction”) as a subheading.

Defence: This complaint seems to be one of interpretation of Talk page guidelines. The Section headings guideline at WP:TPO, says “It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.”. None of Matt's posts have been deleted, nor have they been changed. Not by me, anyway. Note that that guideline also states that no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. (my emphasis).

Matt's post resulted in a rebuke on his talkpage from Ghmyrtle: “I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant.”. I felt the same, which is why I wanted to keep his rant separate from a post that was likely to improve the article. Matt's response to Ghmyrtle included the claim that “… people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things”. Well, that should include all his words, not just those which, in hindsight, he considers appropriate. As Matt says above, “… on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Wikipedia can do without.” Quite. However, Matt is welcome to strike it through if he subsequently considers his words to have been ill-advised or inappropriate, but it is not right that only some editors have the benefit of his stated views.

For reasons best known only to himself, Matt has decided to bring content issues here. While I believe this to be an inappropriate venue for this, I must respond. His misinformed OR/POV views permeate his posts. e.g. “My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh.” (within para 7 of Matt's complaint, above). As so often with Matt's assertions, this is simply untrue. The 2011 census shows 2011 census shows “Nearly two thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011. Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.” Q.E.D. Staying with content for a while, Matt also complains that “... there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all,” (para 7, above). Untrue again. Being part of the UK is not the most notable thing about Welsh people, nor is it true of them all (not all live in the UK or are UK citizens). That is why the UK is not mentioned in the first paragraph. It is, however, in the second paragraph, which states: “Today, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain”.

I was interested to discover (para 8, above) that Matt is working on a new introduction for Welsh People with others, away from, and without notification at, the article talkpage. Sounds rather sinister to me. Shouldn't discussion about article content be open to all? Please advise.

Conclusion: I am sorry this has been brought here, wasting all of our time. Nevertheless, I would welcome a decision on how the WP:TPO guideline should be interpreted in this matter. I would also ask that Matt is requested to add only cited information to articles, and to bare in mind that, while fascinating, people have to spend time reading his rants, so talk page posts should exclude POV and OR and be succinct. Furthermore, I would ask that editors be requested to refrain from making assumptions (Matt, (para 8, above) and Ghmyrtle (at my talkpage) regarding other editors' motivation, which is against WP:AGF. Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dai, people in Wales call themselves 'Welsh' - of course they do. If you ask them if they are British too, then 90% of them say "yes". IT'S NOT SCOTLAND, where between a quarter and third generally do not see themselves as British - it could be rising, we'll see by September. Your figure of '200,000 British' are people who just put down British, of the 2 million in the census (ironically I think I actually put 'Welsh', and told the guy who picked it up it wasn't clear which to put: he responded a bit oddly, by saying it will all be online next time.) The famously Welsh-speaking island of Anglesey has the kind of stats you are alluding to, where 66% of residents there said they are 'Welsh only', and 10% said 'Welsh and British'. Presumably most of the other 24% were either English, Scottish etc or just 'British'. That says everything you need to know. And yes, that island of the North of Wales could indeed be independent in another world, as it has a clear 'Welsh only' majority -- and that's one reason Wales has no single "ethnicity" in this 'modern' sense of the term. Dai, you want to call us all in Wales a single "ethic group", but it doesn't work. I'm one of a no-doubt minority in Wales who just (or generally, really) only refer to myself as 'British', but that doesn't make me any less Welsh! You are constantly trying to hide this diversity in Wikipedia articles, usually by attempting (and often succeeding) in removing the word 'British', or even 'United Kingdom'. I'm so tired of it. I've even had a year or so out and I'm tired of it. As people can probably see, it's actually making my head spin!

I've put my proposed new introduction to others outside of the discussion page largely because you are such a disruptive presence there, and frankly in all these areas regarding UK nationality. It might be me who eventually loses my temper, but I've never been the disruptive force. I essentially get called a 'POV-pusher' for telling people that apples are apples, and I get angry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to request review of the request posted at talk:Amazon Eve#Gender. I responded that we do not lock or blank discussions unless they violate Wikipedia policies; I just wanted to flag it here in case others saw strong enough BLP concerns or other reasons to honor the request. The request was made by a self-identified representative of the subject of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in these cases, it's recommend that they contact WMF directly, if it's a BLP issue. Anyone have the email address? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like commercial spamming article to me. But can't be proven to be so, should remain, unless WP:Notability is not fulfilled.Arildnordby (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been a problem for years. Editors with obvious conflicts have attempted to alter the article without regard for Wikipedia's policies. This latest user has several times stopped just short of making legal threats. I finally removed the article from my watchlist because it was too much trouble to manage and because there were too few other editors interested in it. Frankly, it's too bad the article wasn't deleted when it was taken to AfD. Even if she passes Wikipedia's relatively low threshold of notability, she just isn't that notable. A great resolution, in my view, if one of her supposed reps wanted to take this to WP:OTRS, would be to have the article deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously upheld, under legal threats, by the company Amazing Eve. But, unfortunately, some abuse of Wikipedia will always occur, particularly by dedicated persons who happen to be clever as well.Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THat is incorrect, Arildnordby. The article is not upheld under legal threats, because we do not accept legal threats made by editors against the project or volunteers at the project. And this is precisely why; legal threats are made to intimidate editors and to try to control content. That is why I have blocked JourdySilva until the legal threat is retracted. -- Atama頭 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is going on here is that the rep likes to have the article on their client, but doesn't want any of the speculation about her being transgendered (or whatever the term is), of which there is plenty on the internet if you Google her a bit. Is she notable? I think the coverage does meet GNG at least, perhaps not WP:NMODEL since most of it is general coverage as a result of her being so tall and not recognition as a model per se. The rep did contact OTRS, I offered to take a look. The article claimed she was born a man, using original research to tie the subject to a person who, using her real name, identified as transgendered in an article on Out Magazine years ago. The latest is an SPA that insists their research into birth records and such is "proof" of the transgender claims. So far there is not a single reliable source that flat out identifies the subject of the article as anything other than a woman, and so that's what the article should reflect. Anything else is speculation and goes against the core of WP:BLP. Now as to the demands by the rep that we "stop" the discussion, I will AGF on it by now since it stops short of being a legal threat - Barek's comment to them regarding what we can and cannot discuss on a talk page should hopefully be enough. Going forward, we should consider this another one of those "problem" BLPs that needs a few eyes to avoid unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims to creep back in. Maybe one day there will be a source that supports the assertions, but until then, any whiff of her being anything other than a woman should be removed unless accompanied by very robust sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, she wasn't that clever after all, fortunately! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to get the balance right between open discussion and avoiding violating BLP on talk pages is always tricky but if no reliable sources have been provide linking the subject of the article to the other person or the sexuality claims and they have all been based on WP:OR, I don't see any harm partially courtesy blanking the discussion once it's clear there's nothing new coming, perhaps only leaving the statements that relate to our sourcing requirements and prohibitions of OR. (I'm actually always in favour of blanking discussion of controversy stuff about a living person which is clearly not going to be added to the article if people are concerned about the discussion itself.)

Similarly any future discussions can be deleted outright in the absence of any new sourcing or otherwise relevant, per WP:BLPTALK.

JourdySilva should of course be made aware that if all discussions are partially courtesy blanked, it's more difficult for someone to know what was discussed before and therefore possibly more likely someone will raise the issue again. If this stuff is discussed widely elsewhere I question the wisdom of such blanking instead suggesting the initial discussion is left be.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've added some IMO fairly neutral hidden comments to the places where this stuff seems to be added most (DOB, birthname and beginning of article) to try to discourage further poorly sources or unsourced additions. In the process I also removed the DOB completely since I didn't find any reliable source which mentions it, even the subject's own pages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the diffs between the one where JourdySilva added his contact info and the one where DangerousPanda redacted that info should be redacted, but not the rest of the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm referring to courtesy blanking not revdeletion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, people. I have gone ahead and revdel'd that entire section from the article talk page, and for a number of reasons. IMO, it's borderline oversightable, but it's been revdel'd. Admins can still see the content and the edit summaries are available to all. Firstly, personal information (phone numbers, etc) were posted. Secondly, certain people were making egregious unsourced allegations relating to the article subject. Not just allegations, but seriously damaging ones. Given this subject's career, these allegations could be seriously damaging to her career. Not only that, people in that category suffer a high risk of violence and death. While it's not our remit to deal with that issue, it certainly is when people post unsourced allegations of same. Note that GID is a recognized psychiatric disorder (your opinion may vary, but that's what the book says) which now puts us into even further BLP-vio territory. Using the flimsiest of sources, a liberal application of synthesis and a helping of original research, and you have a massive BLP issue. So yes, I've redacted it per policy after complaints were made to me via email in my capacity as an oversighter - Alison ^❤ 20:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the right thing to do. Have the involved people been warned about BLP violations? People often forget that BLP applies to discussion pages too. We give a bit of leeway or it would be hard to have any kind of discussion there, but you can't make unsubstantiated allegations about an article subject even there. -- Atama頭 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone tell Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to stop his pointy behaviour?

On February 2, Kwamikagami made a series of edits which broke {{val}}. These were reverted, and {{val}} TE-protected. After it was TE-protected, Kwamikagami fork {{val}} into {{val2}}, and went on an AWB spree to replace the use of {{val}} in articles by {{val2}}. {{Val2}} was nominated for deletion pretty much right then and there, but he kept at it.

A side-discussion and edit war occured on WP:MOSNUM, mostly concerning the alignment of asymmetrical uncertainties (should the uncertainties in 1.00+0.11
−0.99 be aligned or not), and fought to introduce {{val2}} as a legit alternative to {{val}}. There is currently an RfC on that (Template talk:Val#RfC).

He has a very long history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Admin Callanecc warned him for his edit warring on MOSNUM [2]. Kwamikagami re-edited the MOSNUM, and Callanec gave him two changes to self-revert [3] [4], but he didn't.

Admin Mr. Stradivarius closed the {{val2}} deletion discussion and deleted/moved it to the sandbox. where before Kwamikagami's was to use AWB to convert {{val}} to {{val2}}, now he's going on an AWB rampage to change the use of {{val}} to {{+-}} [e.g. [5]], claiming "MOS compliance". This is pointy behaviour of the highest order, and makes it a pain in the ass to maintain articles because whenever the RfC on val will close, we'll have to either go through Kwamikagami's edit history and mass revert him, or go on an AWB spree of our own to undo the damage.

Warn him, block him, I don't care, but please do something.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: I reverted *my own edits* resulting in no net change to the articles.

I had made a template change (from {{±}} to {{val2}}) to some articles I had been editing, a change for efficiency that had no effect on the formatting, which was already compliant with the MOS. (Cf. my initial change[6] with the partial self-revert Headbomb linked to above.[7] The restored part is where the later change to {{val}} had broken the formatting.) Headbomb got all upset, and had the template {{val2}} replaced with another, {{val}}, which was similar but resulted in the formatting of those articles no longer being compliant with the MOS, and frankly an eyesore. I then reverted my own edits so that the article format was once again compliant with the MOS, as it had been for years, resulting in no net change except for an invisible increase in the use of the template that Headbomb favors, as I only partially reverted myself. The end result is that, for the point Headbomb is contesting, the articles look now exactly as they did before I made the edits that Headbomb initially objected to. I have not done this to the articles Headbomb's been involved with. Perhaps Headbomb should be warned or blocked for making frivolous charges?

As for the change at MOSNUM, that's a warning to our editors that the template recommended to produce the recommended formatting does not actually produce the recommended formatting. Several admins have noted that the discrepancy is problematic. I am amenable to instead tagging the claim as 'dubious' or to any wording that any editor might think is better than my own, but no-one has bothered, nor has anyone seen fit to revert it. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Headbomb's put a lot of work into the template {{val}}, and it appears he's quite sensitive about it, to the point that he's been demanding that the MOS be changed to comply with his template, and that {{±}}, which is used in 25 times as many articles for the format in question, also be changed to match, rather than allowing even the *option* of user choice in the matter. He's welcome to his opinion, but he hardly has reason to get upset if I disagree. (As does nearly everyone else, for example an opinion that was just posted.[8]) — kwami (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Aren't most templates and important functions supposed to be able to be typed on a standard engligh keyboard? How do you expect most users to type ± often? Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{+-}}, {{-+}} and {{plusminus}} redirect to it. [9] — Lfdder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shift+alt/option+= on a standard Mac keyboard will do it without hassle. The somewhat more esoteric code on Windows is alt+(on the right-hand number pad) 241. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The pages that Kwami edited with AWB are ones that I switched from {{val2}} to {{val}} as part of my close of the TfD discussion yesterday. Given that Kwami was warned by Callannec for edit warring at the MOS on the 13th, it seems poor form to continue the same dispute by switching these pages to a different template. This should be settled at Template talk:Val, where there is already an RfC underway. If Kwami is willing to do that without further edit warring, then I don't think there is a need for any sanctions here.

  On an unrelated note, it would have been nice to have been notified about this discussion; it's a good job I decided to browse ANI this morning, because I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. Callanecc would have probably appreciated a ping as well. Also, "Admin Mr. Stradivarius" sounds far too formal. Just "Mr. Stradivarius" or "Strad" is fine. Or if you really have to put "admin" in there, I'd prefer that you at least make it "Admin, MedCom member, Lua coder and all-round nice guy Mr. Stradivarius". ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused. He changed instances of val that used to be ± before he'd swapped in val2 back to ±. That seems perfectly legitimate to me. — Lfdder (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fail to see how reverting my own edits, because they fail to conform to the MOS, can be considered a problem. Headbomb did not like my creation of the template val2, and it was removed. I then undid my edits that used the now-defunct template. There is no edit war here. Based on your closure summary, I took your edits as a formality in retiring val2, not as a decision to push Headbomb's formatting, which had never appeared on these articles, against the MOS and the majority of editors who have commented. A neutral edit on your part would have been to return the articles to what they had been before I had changed them to the val2 template, and as part of assuming good faith, I assumed that that complications had simply not occurred to you. The alternative would be that you had joined in on one side of a debate that you had resolved to stay neutral of. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I see - if the pages were previously using ± and not val, then that is certainly less objectionable. Of course, I assumed that val2 should simply be replaced with val, as it was a direct alternative. However, the best way to resolve this is through discussion, rather than switching articles from one formatting to the other. As there is an ongoing dispute over whether or not to use a monospace font in number formatting of this sort, it would make sense to leave all formatting of that kind alone until the dispute is resolved. Anything that switches one format to another, like converting val to ±, or editing the templates involved, is going to sour the atmosphere and make it that much harder to resolve things through calm and focused discussion. Your edits may not have broken the letter of the edit warring policy, but to abide by its spirit I think discussing those edits first would have been a better move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right: We should not go around changing the formatting while it's under discussion. However, *I* did not change the formatting, *you* did! — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I assumed that val2 should be changed to val without being aware that the pages were previously formatted using ±. My edits to those articles were to prevent the red text Template:Val2 from appearing where the number should be, which is what would have happened otherwise after I moved val2 to Template:Val/sandbox2 without a redirect. If I had realised that the pages were formatted with ± previously, I probably would have returned them to that state instead. However, the problem here is not as simple as just a mistake in my close that your edits fixed; you have seen for yourself how Headbomb reacted when you moved the pages back to ±. My point is that the less drama-inducing course of action would have been to discuss the edits rather than revert them. I would have been happy to move them back to ± myself if you had let me know of my mistake on my talk page. In any case, we shouldn't dwell on this too much, as it is diverting our attention from resolving the main dispute. It would be best to focus our effort on Template talk:Val so that this can be dealt with definitively. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he's still at it [10] on MOSNUM. How much warning does one need before they start heeding them? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we whip him? — Lfdder (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfdder: Please, let's keep this discussion focused on how to resolve the dispute. Suggestions like this are not helpful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everybody seemed a bit uptight, so I thought I'd lighten up the mood. Pardon me. — Lfdder (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Headbomb? We make a false statement on the MOS, and we can't tag it as a false statement while we discuss what to do about it? That's ludicrous. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'false statement' and there was already a note that this was under discussion. The dubious tag is just there because val doesn't conform to your personal tastes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the {{dubious}} template is redundant to the existing note - how about replacing them both with {{under discussion-inline}}? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me to put a tag on the disputed text in the MOS, although in my experience discussion on the talk page without tagging is more common. If the statement must be tagged, might I suggest {{under discussion-inline}} as an alternative to {{dubious}}? I think it fits the context of the MOS example better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please rule on this contentious AFD. There appears to be a clear consensus, and closing it would put an end to all of the unruly behavior happening there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry that you feel that somebody's state of mind and health is unruly behavior!Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What does anyone's health have to do with the notability of an article's subject? Wikipedia is not therapy, and we don't keep articles about non-notable people because of outside factors. BMK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• please do not turn this into another AFD discussion? This is not what my complaint is about. And STOP talking about my health as if bullying does not affect ones health. If you cared to read my complaint you would see what this is about. This is not an AFD discussion pageCowhen1966 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This entry is about the AfD discussion. As long as you make responses which seem to be non sequitors, people are going to wonder what the heck you're talking about.

  (Also, please start a new comment on a new line, and indent using colons. One colon indents one tab, two colons indents 2 tabs, etc. By starting your new comment right behind the previous one, it does not start on a new line. By not indenting, all of your comments start at the left edge, which makes it hard to follow the thread of the discussion.)

  Finally, it was you, in your first comment here, who mentioned your health. If you don't want something discussed, don't bring it up in conversation. BMK (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again thanks BMK. Nice discussion on bullyingCowhen1966 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that intervention has occurred in relationship to User:Cowhen1966 directly, I would like to point out that no admin has addressed my original concern/comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are given a minimum of 7 days. By the time of the OP, the AfD had only been open for 6 days. An extra couple of days isn't going to hurt things or change the outcome. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that I am having to come on here to make a complaint. The first time, I withdrew my complaint because I did the decent thing and extended an olive branch to all those involved. But despite all attempts to calm the situation down which at times even involves me applying some humor to an aggravated situation, I am CONSTANTLY living in this nightmarish place of constant ridicule, bullying, harassment and endless threats. This has been going on for a while now and while I have stood up to the bullies many a time I think I now need this issue to be looked into very hastily. The last time I tried to lodge a complaint, I received a message asking me to try and sort it out on the editors talk pages. To be honest, short of me literally asking them to meet up so that we can discuss our differences over a cup of tea, I genuinely do not know what else I can do. I even stooped so low as to diss myself in order for this to stop. I have put a liitle essay-like article on my talk page which gives an insight to the state of my mind following these bullying tactics. I have DONE EVERYTHING only to be told that I "should stop playing the victim". These antics have gone on for so long that I have become like a schizophrenic. One minute I am cracking jokes, another minute I am tearing my hair out in anguish. I only came on wikipedia as a single-editor but now I don't know if it's been worth it at all. My aim was to stay since I loved creating the article and I wanted to be a part of some more projects but now I don't know anymore! How can people be allowed to carry on with this sort of behavior? Taking the mick out of your inexperience, taking a mick at an article you worked so hard to create, taking a mick at your identity. Just plain and simply taking a mick at the fact that youre a newbie. I did not put my article up for nomination but I do have the right to defend its ccredibility as an article without getting hounded and ridiculed. My talk page is constantly being hounded. Often times they come in the name of "peace, love and help". But minutes into the conversation you realise that they have a totally different agenda. Personally, this administrator who goes by the name dangerous panda has tried to right some wrongs because it is quite obvious that he nominated the article too hastily. His interaction with me have been confusing at best and threatening at worst. At times he comes across as if he wants to put the article back on AFC but instead of putting the question to me directly, he will offer it like he's only trying to help me and that he's doing me some sort of favour. I have had personal messages asking me about my username and that I work for the person whose article I created because I'm hiding my identity. They were even assuming my identity as being a man and all this was being discussed on my talk page. The last straw that broke the camels back was when a user who has been a constant presence on my page claimed to be offering me some friendly advice. The sarcasm was beyond belief and this time in quite a stern tone I practically tried to end the communication between us and any future ones he may be planning. You see, by this time I had had as much as I could take from this guy. Prior to that I had not actually been on his talk page to read about his mission or personal ethos on Wikipedia. But after our last interaction, I decided to find out who it was who kept on harassing me. It all began to make sense because this editor who goes by the name of Friday, claims to delete all "junk". Maybe that is why he is so sure that my article is going to be deleted. Because he is some expert on junk. As if that wasn't enough, he returns to the AFD discussion page to personally attack and ridicule the article I created. My responses are all on the page. But why this has now come to a header is that I am tired of panda constantly threatening that he will block me. I challenged him to do so but he hasn't. This is simply because he has no legs to stand on. But actually going ahead to block me or threatening me still goes down in my poor estimation of him anyway. My personal experience is that he operates on an intimidating " be afraid be very afraid of me mentallity" but that worked for a while until I was informed by some good people on here not to take any form of bullying. Not even from an administrator. Bullying is bullying whoever you are and it's not nice. I want this dealt with because I fear that he may block me because he can. I am done with the threats. If he wants to block me he should go ahead and do that. But if he has no grounds then he should leave well alone. I am really tired of this. I won't even go into the Religious pun and ridicule that Friday wrote on the AFD page because I think I made my point clear. But I would not want him to contact my page EVER AGAIN and if he does I will have to see how to stop him from coming on my page to harass and ridicule me. I have not been sleeping well because my e-mail keeps alerting me of constant activities on my page. I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Wikipedia may have its first case of suicide. I have informed my family in the unlikely event that something happens to me. I have taken shots of all my pages, e-mails, AFD discussion and talk page. Practically EVERYTHING. Please let this STOP !!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that anyone is going to read your wall of text. If you expect volunteer editors to take time out of their day to help you resolve a problem, respect their time and effort enough to write out a concise complaint that provides evidence in the form of diffs and specific violations—not a 1080p paragraph-less screed. N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how to provide diff. All I can do is write articles. Does that mean that my complaint should be treated any differently?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I am not disrespecting anybody's time. I am simply reporting bullying and harassment so if no one can do anything on here please let me knowCowhen1966 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) is the wall of text an essay I also think its referring to articles? The essay also says that sometimes by reducing the text you may miss out on important facts. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines on putting a complaint up on the administrators notice board. It might tell me exactly what to do?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Cowhen! I'm not an adminstrator or anything. I'm just nothing. But, I sympathize with your frustration, and ALSO, what you feel as a lack of ability to help other editors to see DIRECTLY what you complain about. Now, I have an offer: Place a single complaint, one after the other, on MY Talk Page; link to the page in question for each complaint! Then, together, we can formulate a criticism of what you have experienced, and that I also think should be reported. If WE two (I don't think we have any meetings from before??) might disagree on whether or not it should be reported, we discuss it on my talk page first. Ok with you?Arildnordby (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I felt saddened about how you feel about, and have been received at Wikipedia. I want to be a sympathetic and friendly face for you, because from your message, I feel you need that type of support. Don't feel any sort of obligation to list your specific complaints in some sort of objective hierarchy, just post on my Talk Page point after point. I will do my best to be a friendly, supportive voice here.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowhen1966 - You could start by saying who the editor is who you feel is bullying you. Then, the place or places where the supposed bullying is happening. Leave out your personal feelings and just provide the facts. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having made a minuscule, wholly insufficient check, I believe that this is how the editor who made the complaint feels about, in particular, the AfD nomination of his Cecil Jay Roberts article. But, there might be lots of other instances here the editor feels have been totally bullying in tone.Arildnordby (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, looked at his talk page, and the AfD, and in the course of that reading, I've seen Cowhen1966 accuse a number of editor of harrassing or bullying him -- pretty much anyone who did anything that Cowhen1966 didn't like, such as posting a warning template on his talk page, or nominating his article for deletion. Throughout the discussions that I've read, Cowhen1966 has shown a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes. There's nothing wrong with that, but when he's been corrected or help has been attempted, Cowhen1966 had shown an unwillingness or inability to learn, and an intransigence which, on the AfD, gets close to being tendentious and disruptive. Editors have sincerely tried to help, but have been met with "I didn't hear that" behavior.

From what I've seen, unless Cowhen1966 provides something specific, there has been no bullying or harassment, simply normal Wikipedia processes at work. BMK (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI thread involving Cowhen1966 [11]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't been on my talk page then? Read the piece I put up on there about bullying. Even then I didn't know I would end up here again. And no this isn't about the article I created. It started there then it all became dark and nasty. Mind games, insinuations, ridicule etc. you are wrong if you think this is about some beady page I created. I just believe in standing up to bullies. Something I have shied away from in the past. And yes I have explained here on this page to some detail what has transpired over the last couple of weeks. If I was to write everything, it would fill an encyclopedia. Literally.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you explain nothing. You do talk a lot about your feelings, but there are no details in this report about the person you're accusing and the specific events you are referring to. We cannot get into your skin, and cannot feel your emotions, so you must provide specific facts for the admins to make a determination on. I see none of that. You're asking for action, you must provide the evidence of the need for it. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE, BMK, that as yet, it is really difficult for us outside editors to find ourt about this, That is WHY I offer my help, and ear, to Cowhen, so that he can calmly explain in his own way to me various grievances. We really should remember that lots of technical expertise is involved being editors at Wikipedia, and some might feel that can't "break that particular code". So, that will be one of my ambitions if Cowhen chooses to talk with me, to formulate what we two will agree upon are grievances to be dealt with at ANI.Arildnordby (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Cowhen1966 takes advantage of your offer. BMK (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give him personally, on my Talk Page, the benefit of the doubt, but NOT here. I am sympathetic towards him, and if I really feal that untoward behaviour towards this editor hads happened, or that an UNDUE AfD proceeds agains Cecil Jay Roberts, I'll retutn to fight. But, I won't do that, unledss Cowhen goes onto my Talk Page (me being a neutral observer), we talk together, and find what our commo ground is. I'll certainly not demand an inclusion on Wikipedia of what I regard as a NON-notable article, but there are lots of articles being at Wikipedia SOMEBODY might declare non-notable. It alkl depends, relative to MY OWN offer, how Cowhen chooses to respond to meArildnordby (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you you're very kind. But I have done what Wikipedia says we should do after all attempts at reconciliation fails. If this does not achieve that goal which I hope it will, then I will simply move to the next step. I won't respond to anything with regards to the article for deletion page because I know an IMPARTiAL decision will be made. And well, if one cannot be made, then I shall cross that bridge when I get there. But for now I welcome the fact that I have reported for the second time this time in greater detail what I have been subjected to for the past couple of weeks or soCowhen1966 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person closing the AfD will not make an independent determination of what is "right" or "wrong", because that is not their job. What they will do is determine what the consensus is of the editors who have posted comments. For this reason, at this time, the only way the AfD is going to be closed is with the deletion of the article, because you are the only one arguing for keeping it, eveyone else (including myself) has !voted "Delete". If you think there is going to be another outcome, you're fooling yourself, at least as things stand right now. BMK (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowhen: There is NO DEADLINE at Wikipedia!! That will ALSO, possibly, work to your advantage. If. for example, we two talk together, and I find out that either a) You have been unfairly treated or b) Your article is unfairly deleted, I am in my perfect right to demand reopening of issues. Please talk to me, I've left an explanatory message on your own Talk Page.Arildnordby (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BMKCowhen1966 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to comment on my talkpage only, but I have decided that the information below is germane to the entire thread.

It's unfortunate that every time anyone gives Cowhen a piece of advice they don't like, they refer to it as "harassment" or "bullying" (see previous ANI thread noted above). Unfortunately, asking someone to simply read the policies they agreed to and actually follow the simplest of guidelines is neither harassment nor bullying. It's also bizarre that suggesting "this article looks like it was written by the subject" is somehow an accusation that they need to defend themself against - it's not. I think I've even been accused of acting without a neutral POV ... a laughable, unprovable claim - indeed, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

The simple fact is that there are at least a half-dozen respected editors (let's remove me from that grouping for a moment) who have tried to patiently and politely guide them in the right direction, but Cowhen insists and persist that they'll do things their way, according to their interpretation...or else.

If they have "threatened suicide", this would be unfortunate - this shows that they're far too attached to this subject, and should logoff and go for a walk - nothing on the internet should pick at one's psyche in such a way as to cause that feeling. We all have the ability to control how the internet affects us: turn it off.

As to this ANI itself, I'm not sure why I was notified: my name doesn't appear here. There are no diffs nor any evidence that I have bullied or harassed anyone - and if anyone on the planet reviews either the AFD or my edits to the editor's talkpage quite the opposite will be visible.

My "informal" and wholly detached reading is this: just like thousands of other editors in the past, we have an editor who wrote a reallllllllyyyy poor article, one that doesn't even appear to meet basic standards. We all know happens hundreds of times a day. Most editors happily take constructive criticism and develop into good editors in the long run. Those who are wholly unwilling to depersonalize and charge forward making wild accusations are eventually blocked. Hell, I've written crap articles that don't exist anymore either, and defended them ... up to a point. User:Cowhen1966 has actually been treated far more gently than almost all of those most persistent editors, but doesn't respond well to polite critique. It would be a shame to see them self-destruct in this manner.

If User:Cowhen1966 had an issue with me, they were required to address me directly. I disengaged from their talkpage after spending a number of hours holding their hand and moving them forward - only to be attacked. I have remained engaged on the AFD solely because I started it, and have since found that they have turned it into a farce. They should read one or two previous AFD's to see exactly how to participate in a community discussion.

I'm not sure how much more can be given to an editor who refuses to help themself. The possible way forward for Cowhen is to get a mentor - but it will need to be one with a thick skin, because history has shown that they'll be attacked on a regular basis. DP 10:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentored a few editors who had problems (with mixed success, though I like to think I helped somewhat in each case) and I'm a pretty patient person but with no offense to Cowhen1966 (who seems to be acting in good faith with a sincere intent to improve the encyclopedia) I wouldn't know where to begin. They are treating every piece of advice with suspicion, and responding to a number of attempts to help with outright hostility. I don't think that this is just an issue where an editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's processes, I think this is an issue where an editor has an inability or unwillingness to assume good faith from anyone. That combative mentality will never work on this project. It's a shame but I can't see a constructive way forward for Cowhen1966. -- Atama頭 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Atama, and therefore I propose a week's block, to be most likely followed by an indefblock if there's no improvement in Cowhen's embattled attitude. I'm putting a block on the table in particular because I've seen Cowhen argue with some triumph on the AfD of his article that he can't have been making personal attacks, because he hasn't been blocked: "If this a personal attack why haven't I been blocked? After all I have had many warmings."[12] Why haven't you been blocked, Cowhen? It's not because you haven't been making personal attacks and assuming an unacceptable amount of bad faith, because you have. The reason you haven't been blocked is because you're new, and administrators have been leaning over backwards to be nice to you and not bite, just as other experienced users have been doing. But if blocks are the only arguments that you're prepared to take on board — not explanations, not olive branches, not warnings — then I guess there's nothing else to do but block you.

Please note that the block I propose is not intended to inhibit communication between Cowhen and Arildnordby. Such communication can just as well take place on Cowhen's page as on Arild's, and might indeed have a better chance if Cowhen can focus on that page, and no longer feels obliged to post to defend himself all over various boards.

Proposed: a one-week block for personal attacks and battling.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Support per my words above (the inability to AGF) and per their own words that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior. -- Atama頭 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the recipient of a number of Cowhen's attacks, and in response to his many attacks on those who sincerely tried to help him. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've been thinking of this for a while, both because of the clear problems they have in interacting with people, but also because of WP:competence issues, particularly since they haven't shown any sign of improving and their problems interacting make it seem unlikely there's much hope for improvement. That said, I also support only a limited block for now so the 1 week is fine. The AFD should hopefully be done by then. They may come back and try a deletion review (which I think they suggested they would do) or otherwise make a big fuss, but I hope not. I know they denied any connection to the subject but I finally decided to check the remaining image (which I asked them to put up for deletion a few hours ago), and confirmed neither Google Image search nor TinEye find it anywhere else despite apparently showing the subject in his early years. So despite my desire to WP:AGF, I do wonder. I'm hoping that Cowhen1966 will be less emotive if it's clear that the article is deleted and not coming back (as I expect from the AFD) and they will then move on to working on other things. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a limited block to concentrate the mind. Nothing else seems to have worked. However, I very much doubt that he will continue editing here once the article is deleted. Even if it were kept, it is highly unlikely he would contribute to anything but that. From my experience, that level of desperation, aggression, and tendentious editing at an AfD is fairly typical of people who have a very close and personal connection to the article's subject. Someone should also close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts now. It's been running for over 7 days. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I have read through the blocks of text above by Cowhen1966 and his comments on the AfD. I think as a new editor, he is a bit overwhelmed and doesn't quite see yet that it takes time and effort to understand Wikipedia policies. Some people get it more quickly than others. I notice that his editing has decreased, so he may be pausing on his own to think about what has happened. I think we should avoid block if possible, since this would be interpreted by him as bulling. Ultimately, if he continues along this path, I would favor blocking but I think we should wait a bit. I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A block would certainly feed into Cowhen's perception of being persecuted. However, he's already seeing conspiracies behind every bush, so this would not be a new problem. I also share Voceditenore's suspicion that this editor will disappear after their article does. Friday (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the consensus here, I applied a one-week block, which should at the very least prevent additional disruption to the AFD until it's closed. This comment seems a pretty strong confirmation that they intend to continue their attacks and wild accusations unless blocked. The 'I'm a newbie' excuse doesn't really carry much weight when the problem is extreme and unprovoked personal attacks--it's not as though those are acceptable elsewhere either. Given the number of people who've attempted to reach out with kindness only to have it thrown back in their face, I don't think more of that is likely to help, but I won't discourage anyone from trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously I support your block but you might want to let them know on their own talk page why they were blocked, what the duration is, what they can do about it, and so on (whether by template or otherwise). Not meaning to nitpick but it's only fair. I'd have left a template myself but I think it would be less confusing if you did so, as the blocking administrator. -- Atama頭 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A very good point. I left a message. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per I am One of Many. While Cowhen1966 has issues with comprehension and assuming good faith, I feel that a block of any length is counterproductive, and even if you disagree a week is massive overkill. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Torn If you want to block for personal attacks, go ahead. If you want to block to prevent further disruption on the AFD, go ahead. If you want to indef block, and only accept an unblock with conditions of a) strict civility parole, b) mentorship, and c) a topic ban from Mr Roberts, then I'm all in favour of that. I might even go for c) alone, if asked nicely DP 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overly restrictive ambitions here I have NO opinions on justifications of currently imposed blocks herr, but I really think it is sad to see other editors rooting for indefinite blocks already. That is really premature, IMOArildnordby (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't understand the difference between "infinite" (forever) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced the behaviours will not recur)? DP 00:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I don't see though, why one should root for even the indefinite (rather than permanent/infinite) block as a desired goal, without bothering to wait for the result of the actually imposed time-limited block.Arildnordby (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guarantee he won't pull any of the same crap after a week is done? If not, then indef + conditions on unblock is actually the most sensible way forward to guarantee non-recurrence, and very standard DP 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any guarantees. He haven't even responded with any specific discussable posts yet, as per my invitation, although he has expressed genuine gratitude. I just feel that threats about indefinite blockings that some editors seem enthusiastic about issuing, isn't due- Yet.Arildnordby (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me you're still confusing it with "infinite" DP 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Seems Cowhen's been offered help & advice yet seems to ignore or doesn't understand, Perhaps a weeks block might actually help.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after reading through the AFD (in its almighty entirety) and their talk page (what a mess). DP, Atama and Bishonen sum up the problem nicely. Seeing a new editor it's important to grant them some leeway, however seeing how many spoons have been brought in to feed Cowhen1966 it is getting to the point of "AGF isn't a suicide pact". In fact, I have nothing but respect for those who have tried repeatedly to help Cowhen1966 except it's time to cut one's losses. Blackmane (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite twice being the subject of recent ANI threads (19th Jan [13] 18th Feb [14]) it seems that Bigpoliticsfan has totally failed to take note of what has been said regarding inappropriate speedy deletion and similar issues. Bigpoliticsfan has just nominated the Tommy Oliver article for speedy deletion as CSD 11 "obviously invented", despite the article being ten years old, with multiple contributors and multiple cited sources. [15] - an utterly ridiciulous nomination, and one that I frankly find incomprehensible. The problem isn't just with speedy deletion nominations either - Bigpoliticsfan has also just tagged our article on Alison Lundergan Grimes with {{lead rewrite}}, {{lead too long}}, {{peacock}} and {{recentism}} tags for no legitimate reason whatsoever, as a cursory inspection of the article will show. I raised these edits at User talk:Bigpoliticsfan, but as usual, the response was a vague apology with no real explanation, and the same old promises that litter the talk page for every prior complaint. (see also this ridiculous tag-fest for another example of cluelessness [16]) It seems self-evident to me that Bigpoliticsfan simply lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia, and rather than waste further time with another round of apologies and worthless promises, we should block this time-wasting 'contributor' indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we definitely have a problem, having looked at their last 40 or so edits I see several problems in addition to the above - this probably shouldn't have been wholesale reverted, at least without a better edit summary, I can't see how the lead is too long in this and I have my doubts about some of the other tags, here the pages do exist, here it did open in 1900 and the edit summary is, at best, unclear, similarly here, I've no idea what the editor intended but it wasn't vandalism here and although possible inappropriate it wasn't vandalism here. That's a disturbing high percentage of problematic edits, especially given the previous discussions. I would be interested in their response - hopefully longer than their last one here - before proceeding further. Dpmuk (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the main content of Tommy Oliver comes under the heading "Fictional character history". Fiction! Fiction is obviously invented, that's what makes it fiction, geddit? No? Oh well. And Alison Lundergan Grimes, well, er, I give up. Looks like a pattern of gross, energetic and time-wasting incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had one "interaction" with the editor. I noticed this edit described in the edit summary as "Rv factual errors." However:

• It wasn't a factual error, in fact the edit being discussed was correcting an error
• Bigpoliticsfan didn't revert, but (incorrectly) removed the entire entry
• I asked the editor User_talk:Bigpoliticsfan#Recent_edit for an explanation, but was ignored. In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy." My thoughts exactly. Based on warnings on their user talk page, Bigpoliticsfan has repeatedly jumped into one area or another and moved quickly and recklessly, in such a manner as to inadvertently cause disruption. From adding speculative information before it could be sourced, to asking for page protection when it wasn't needed, to making comments at WP:RFPP when they shouldn't be (non-admin comments are generally discouraged), to making "drive-by" good article nominations, to tagging BLPs for BLPPROD deletion when they already had references, to inappropriately tagging CSDs, and then most recently for becoming an anti-vandal but reverting people mistakenly, removing information accidentally, and calling good faith edits vandalism.

I really appreciate the enthusiasm of Bigpoliticsfan, their good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and their willingness to admit that they made mistakes. But how many times can an editor say that they're going to be more careful before we stop believing them? I wish there was a technical way to force this editor to slow down, because I feel like if there was, they could be a net benefit. But in the absence of such tools, I think that this editor needs to make a dramatic behavioral change or we can't allow them to participate here anymore. Even good faith efforts can't be allowed when they accidentally cause disruption over and over again. This editor has been here for 8 months, has been warned repeatedly, has been to ANI repeatedly, and hasn't shown any sign that they have changed. Even if they stop this anti-vandal patrolling, I'm afraid they'll just move to another area where they will make mistakes and cause problems, as that has been their history thus far. -- Atama頭 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to a request to try mentorship.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am not sure if I should report this to WP:RPP, WP:ANEW or WP:AIV but this is definitely disruptive editing.

UBM is a dab page that disambiguates between UBM plc and United Beach Missions. Now, United Beach Missions is deleted sometimes in 2011, so the proper action is to convert the dab page to a redirect to the only existing item, UBM plc. The problem is a guest user from the IP range of 149.254.0.0 reverting the change on the pretext that he thinks the deletion of United Beach Missions was "unjustified". Seems to me a sign of being a fan of United Beach Missions, or something to that effect, who tries to maintain vestiges of a deleted subject in Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, justified or not, keeping a red in disambiguation page serves no purpose. (Yes, having red links are allowed under certain conditions such as the prospect having a notable article, but I am not sure it has merit here.) Please advise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like Barek redirected the page, it violates Wikipedia:DAB. Epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And next time, WP:ANEW is the best place to put reports of edit-warring like this (though it didn't break 3 revert rule just yet — the talk page should have been used instead). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er... are you referring to a talk page that he does not see due to his IP constantly changing? Look, you are more than welcome to correct me, but the last two times that I did it, it felt like such a waste of time. I ended up reporting them anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a user talk page (I should have been more clear), but the page's talk page. A referral to the talk page can be in one edit summary, and if the IP user doesn't use the talk page and continues reverting after three reverts, then they should be reported to ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is back today, so I have protected the page for a week and will watch-list. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeatedly violating consensus by putting the template {{CongLinks}} into "Further reading", rather than the "External links" section where it belongs, mostly with comment "dmoz". Further thought suggests that, since I was in favor of deletion of CongLinks, I might be considered "involved". Since this covers over 100 edits in the past week, and blocks of 15 per hour, I think immediate action is required.

As I'm not on very often, I won't take offense if others revert this action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I view this block as preventive, since the IP from Chicago posted a statement on Ronz' talk page about how consensus has not been reached on the CongLinks template. To me, this seemed to be a statement of intent to continue pushing the CongLinks template into "Further reading", which would be disruptive. At Template talk:CongLinks#CongLinks is not 'Further reading', the IP and I were going back and forth over the issue, with Ronz weighing in with me against the IP to make it two against one. Note that the IP's arguments were all over the map rather than focusing on what should go in the "External links" section. Arthur Rubin recently offered his CongLinks-as-external-links view to make it three against one.

The IP was carrying out the intended changes hidden under the guise of "dmoz" edit summaries, for instance here, so that makes this block appropriate. We need to get a statement from the IP recognizing that consensus is against CongLinks in "Further reading". I recommend that such a statement be requested as a condition of unblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a second, uninvolved admin opinion, I think this was an appropriate block. -- Atama頭 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please block Anarchistdy (talk · contribs)? This editor has been edit-warring at Rosie Huntington-Whiteley to advertise someone's funeral (example), in spite of having been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and has just left a pile of trolling on my talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled at first, trying to figure out what the deal was with the funeral announcement. But then I realized that it was an attempt to use text from an obituary as a source to support information about the subject's grandmother (to support information that was already present in the article). So I don't see it as disruptive editing or vandalism, and while I understand why you'd leave a disruptive editing notice (because it's puzzling behavior) I don't think the template you left was appropriate. The responding template left on your user talk page was poor communication, but I see it as a tit-for-tat response showing that the template you left was inappropriate.

The edit-warring is not ideal behavior, but the editor hasn't violated 3RR (in fact, I count a total of 2 reverts in a 24-hour period there, which isn't particularly excessive). And at least one of those reverts is done in an appeal to WP:BLP because they dispute that the ethnicity of the subject's grandmother is verified by a reliable source. The best course of action is to take this dispute to a discussion, either at the editor's talk page or (ideally) at the article talk page, something that you have failed to do. You deserve a trout at the least for reverting, leaving a template, then taking the issue all the way to ANI without once even attempting to actually talk to the other person like a human being first. -- Atama頭 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise funerals. The editor had been warned a few weeks ago regarding the same issue, as you can see on their talk. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "advertising" a funeral. The funeral took place in November 2012, well over a year ago. It was, however, an inappropriate source (a forum on Google Groups). Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not joking. The funeral wasn't a random person's funeral, it was a funeral for the subject's grandmother. And this isn't even a non sequitur, it was being used as a reference for information that already existed in the article that mentioned her grandmother. I'm not arguing that the reference is appropriate, nor am I arguing that the format (especially the inclusion of the entire transcript) was done correctly. But it's not disruptive editing, or spamming, or anything else that you're alleging. The fact that you hadn't taken the time to verify this before making an accusation is bad enough, but the fact that you've dismissed the explanation and asked whether I'm serious is worse. You need to collaborate with other editors, and you cannot communicate with people exclusively through edit summaries, templates, and noticeboards. Communication, collaboration, and consensus is the foundation of this encyclopedia. Not to sound preachy, but really these are fundamentals and it's easy to lose track of them when you're involved in a dispute, but it's important that you at least make the effort to communicate before bringing this to administrators to enforce conduct policies. -- Atama頭 20:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since it hasn't been said before, falsely accusing people of vandalism is itself disruption, so you need to take more care next time before leaving vandalism templates on another editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin please block Iraag (talk · contribs). He has twice nominated Jeffrey Altheer for Speedy Deletion when it's not eligible as I've explained to him already and posted a fake block notice on my Talk page. Does not have the competence to be here. JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the reference to JMHamo (talk · contribs). I apologize if I've committed a mistake. But one thing I would like to mention that the article Jeffrey Altheer, which I nominated for speedy deletion does not have sufficient contents. Before blocking me please review the Jeffrey Altheer article and if I've violated any wikipedia policy then do block me. Iraag (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraag: your speedy tag at Jeffrey Altheer was 100% incorrect. The article is notable and sufficient as a stub, it simply needs updating which I intend to do later this evening.

@JMHamo: did this really have to come to ANI so quickly? GiantSnowman 17:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GiantSnowman, it didn't come here very quickly in relation to how quickly the user posts. Iraag's machine-gun speed editing, crazed ANI nominations,[17] strange templates on userpages (especially this one), strange speedy tags (especially this one) and generally excessive postings on usertalk pages are disruptive and either trollish or (more likely) incompetent. And what's this, a threat of further template harassment.. ? I'm not sure. Here he asks five different users in the space of five minutes to create the same article for him: [18][19][20][21][22]. I've merely dipped a toe in the contributions. If anybody can persuade the user to type less fast and think twice before hitting save, maybe they can learn, but I'm frankly tempted to block. What do you think should be done, GiantSnowman — mentoring? Bishonen | talk 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'll add a bit from recent rather typical post, one of several on AndyTheGrump's talkpage: "It's like you are jealous with writing of my articles as you have restored all many articles and even nominated some for speedy deletion. Please don't forget you are only a Admin not the developer or the owner of Wikipedia." If nobody has any objection or anything else to suggest, I do intend to block, even though I believe they mean well. Competence is required. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Mentoring could be an option - though I don't have the time to do so - but failing that, a CIR block may well be warranted. GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from everything else, I don't think that Iraag's skills in the English language are sufficient for him to be a useful contributor - this post [23] makes no sense at all until you realise that he thinks 'restore' means 'delete'. As for 'meaning well', at least one of the references for the Isrg Rajan article (which I'm sure was autobiographical) was completely bogus - a link to this page [24], which contains 'ISRG' as a NASDAQ identifier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is telling, Andy; if it's well-meant, I guess it suggests a WP:CIR abyss. I'd be surprised if anybody else is prepared to take on mentoring the user either, GS, but I'll leave this open for a few more hours in case of further commentary. Meanwhile it's rather striking that Iraag has continued the disruptive editing after he posted in this thread 24 hours ago. Examples: the post on Andy's page I quoted just above, and (this just in) the recreation yet again of an article redirected per per AfD.[25] I don't know if he's not watching ANI, or just not getting what's been said beyond the Jeffrey Altheer speedy-tagging issue. Ping, Iraag! Bishonen | talk 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

First of all I would like to thank each of you for bringing my mistake or the contributions in light. Well, earlier I nominated Jeffrey Altheer for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy:A2 where Jeffrey Altheer is already existing in nl:Jeffrey Altheer. One thing I would like mention that Ping, AndyTheGrump has raised many issues in my editing/ contribution but he haven't discussed with me about any of my article rather he nominated for speedy deletion Isrg Rajan or redirected Chirag Paswan to other article. As well as he have not consider 4 valid references out of 5 references added by me under the article Isrg Rajan (now deleted/nominate by me) and made another issue by taking one of invalid reference. Sir, you all are welcomed to block me and yes! I've no problem as I am a volunteer on Wikipedia as like you all. Thanks!! Ping, Bishonen, Iraag (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallexikon filed a malformed Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 which included unsupported claims. See this diff and see the comment by User:Jmh649 (Doc James) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Outside view by Jmh649 .28Doc James.29.

Middle 8 endorsed an unsupported claim of skewing the facts but has since not withdrawn the claim.

Editors voiced their displeasure with the unsupported claim made by both Middle 8 and Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim both of you made against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias. The evidence is against both of you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me. Middle 8 accused QuackGuru of IDHT-ing on misreading Middle 8's edits but the claim by Middle 8 is not supported by the evidence. I did not misread the diffs. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by IRWolfie-. Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim in that thread.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me in another thread. Middle 8 accused me of IDHT again without supporting evidence. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Section break. Middle 8, please withdraw your repeated unsupported claims.

Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up. I explained it in my edit summary this was discussed before. But Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up against consensus again. There was a discussion about the details in a recent a RfC. The following text was part of the RfC I started: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

I recently explained again on the talk page the extreme details about the set-up is undue weight and is not typically found in other articles. The closing admin wrote "RFC sample size could be greater, but only 1 real !vote for the greater information. The lesser level of information avoids getting into WP:MEDRS violating WP:COATRACK. If the trials themselves are notable the article should be about the trials, not the acupuncture results." See Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User 39 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what this seemingly relatively new user is doing, but it is WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post something similar when I saw him move two grape articles Rotberger (temp) and Gouais blanc (temp). This is very bewildering and looks like trolling. Would appreciate some admins breaking out the mop and bucket for this mess. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my link was for User 38 while Flyer22 posted for User 39. Looks like an even bigger mess now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar thread on AN about a User 47. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agne27 (Agne), I first noticed the editor with this move. Anyway, I see that DrKiernan blocked him or her two minutes after my report on this matter. Now it's time to clean up the user's massive mess.

Interesting, Kyohyi; likely the same user.Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the same jerk; seems to have some kind of bot to do this on a mass basis in a few seconds. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mapswhets2 (talk · contribs)
• User 38 (talk · contribs)
• User 47 (talk · contribs)

All appear involved. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_47_moving_pages_without_good_reason. They've also found 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, and 46. These discussions should probably be combined. There's still a huge clean up needed. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they could be easily reverted via movepages.py + bash, poke me if needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have closed the AN discussion and invited comment here; as this is clearly a wider issue it seems more suitable for ANI. GiantSnowman 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From what it looks like, all of the pagemoves have been reverted for User 38 (talk · contribs). Anyone mind nuking the remnants? Cloudchased (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vituzzu, because this user moved the articles on a massive scale with some kind of tool, it'll be easier and quicker if administrators or other editors with such tools revert this user; administrator Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) is already on the job. There are also probably some moves that require administrative assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was also on it but since you already had local resources to fulfil the task I'm no longer needed then :D --Vituzzu (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the job is done, anyone mind cleaning up the mess that I inadvertently left behind by pressing some big, scary buttons? Non-admin page moves left the redirects behind. :/ Cloudchased (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although now blocked, there are still some of the residual XXXXXX (temp) files inserted by User:User 38 that need to be snuffed. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real problem, as well the pesky vandal knows. We can cover the cracks (as some of us have tried to do by moving those articles back), but unless someone can point me to a quick way of doing it, this vandal will always have the upper hand if he can move a dozen articles per minute. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User 47 for the full list (9 accounts) after checkuser. Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there someway of stopping any user from moving more than say, 10 pages per minute, unless they're an approved bot? I can't see any real reason why any human user would move more than one page every 6 or so seconds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How did the guy manage to move the pages without being autoconfirmed? WP:MOVE says that users have to be autoconfirmed in order to move pages. Deor (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is there that is a page move throttle for new users, but these accounts made a bunch of sandbox edits and waited a couple of weeks in order to bypass the new user filter. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly, someone with knowledge about Wikipedia policies is gaming the system to cause widespread disruption. This stuff annoys me. :( -- Atama頭 20:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The checkusers and stewards are looking into this problem. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages have been moved back to their proper places - in some cases without leaving a redirect, in others the redir has been deleted separately. Unfortunately, sometimes the double-redir-fix bots got there first so there is more cleanup needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the page moves have been reverted, and all of the redirects that were sometimes left behind at the "(temp)" names have been deleted. I don't know about the state of the redirs that became broken by good-faith bot edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all the broken redirects due to AvicBot's good-faith edits, but someone may want to double-check. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of vandalism even on high speeds is really nothing new, but I prefer administrators to do this job because they have the suppressredirect right. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TeleComNasSprVen: You linked to a user page that was deleted more than seven years ago; although registered, that user has neither contribs nor deleted contribs - what is the relevance? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, changed the link above. It may not be obvious from logs and deleted contributions, but there was a history there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any other admin over Wikipedia please inform Admin User:Smartse! for cancelling the speedy deletion nomination of the article Isrg Rajan as I've added many reliable secondary resources such as newspaper, web etc. for the references but still the admin nominated my article for speedy deletion. Iraag (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then you blanked the article which technically would allow it to be speedily-deleted per the G7 criterion. -- Atama頭 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraag:, this is the second time today your speedy deletions have been raised at ANI - see also #User:Iraag - are you aware of WP:BOOMERANG? If you don't know how to properly apply CSD to articles then you should not be doing so at all. GiantSnowman 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, last time I nominated a article for the speedy deletion but this time the last editor has took revenge by nominating my article for deletion and appealing other admins to delete my articles. thanks for your help tc. Iraag (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - the second speedy deletions involving you have been brought to ANI. Firstly your over-zealous tagging of the Jeffrey Altheer article, and now this. GiantSnowman 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was about a 19-year-old with no credible claim to notability. 'Revenge' has nothing to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must be some kind of wizard because someone deleted the article per G7 4 minutes after my comment. -- Atama頭 20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Atama, you qualify for wizard-ship.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long standing split tag on Right-wing socialism. The discussion had stalled, so I raised an RfC in order to resolve the issue. I deliberately stayed out of the discussion so that I could be neutral. Everything has been civilised right up until the robot removed the RfC tag. Believing WP:RFC and WP:ANRFC allowed me to close the discussion I did so. I was immediately reverted by one of the participants, so I notified WP:ANRFC. user:Keithbob closed the RfC today [[26]] and was reverted immediately [[27]] by user:Collect. I do not believe either Keithbob or I have acted contrary to the process and it appears that collect intends to edit war with anyone who closes the RfC contrary his preference. Any assistance that you can provide will be appreciated. Op47 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus" was all of 4 to 2 which I decline to accept as a "clear consensus." RfC closers do not get a "supervote" in such a case by precedent. The article was not deleted at AfDs in the past where far larger numbers participated, and I regard AfD as being the proper course of action rather than using a 4 to 2 !vote as a means of deletion. Cheers. As for your failure to assume good faith - your accusation that I would edit war on this is absurd and incollegial. Kindly redact that accusation. Where prior AfDs have occurred, it is best to renominate at a new AfD. And I know of no case where the person starting the RfC is considered a proper closer of the RfC which he actually started and using his own "supervote" (I trust no one asserts that 4 to 2 is a "clear consensus to delete an article"). Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand objecting to a closure from a non-administrator. Op47, you realize that ANRFC is an administrator's noticeboard, and Keithbob is not an administrator, so if you were looking for an admin to close it why did you accept Keithbob's closure?

As to whether or not the article must go to AfD... I disagree on that point. The proposal as I understand it isn't to delete the article's content, but to split it up into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. I don't see that AfD is required in that case, even if previous AfD discussions resulted in a conclusion to keep the information in one article. I saw, Collect, that you had felt that proper notification wasn't done when the RfC was begun, and so felt that the RfC result was invalid. Would you accept the validity of the RfC if the proper parties (and/or Wikiprojects) were notified and the RfC was extended to give a reasonable time for those people to provide input? That should have at least as much exposure as an AfD. I dislike the idea of moving everything to a new venue when the current location has already had a discussion that can be continued. -- Atama頭 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CLOSE "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. [bold added]. Furthermore it says RfC's are closed on the basis of "rough consensus". Before closing the RfC I reviewed all of the comments and also read the two prior AfDs from 2012. At the AfD's there was no consensus for deletion. However the clear majority of the participants favored either deletion or merger and only a minority supported keeping the article as is. Same at the RfC. Therefore I assessed that there was a "rough consensus" to merge the contents (not delete them) and to create a disambiguation page in it's place. Closures are subjective and are interpretations by good faith, involved editors. There is a procedure for challenging a close and allowing a participant to revert the close is not one of them. Again I quote WP:CLOSE "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review." However if those who disagree with the consensus close, are permitted to continue shopping for new closers, I'm sure they will eventually find someone who will give them the outcome they desire.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article split is not the same as deletion, so I see nop good reason why a debate on a proposed split should have been done via AfD -- indeed I might have speedy-closed such a discussion as an inappropriate nom. While it is usual for AfDs to be closed by admins, particularly AfDs resulting in Delete outcomes, since an admin is needed to perform a deletion anyway, other sorts of RfCs can be closed by experienced editors who are not admins. That said, wider participation might be a good thing, and a neutral announcement to editors who cared enough to comment on the past AfD discussions, or who made significant edits to the article, might be a good idea. Atama's suggestion seems worth considering. I have no opinion on the desirability of the proposed split, but if it is eventaully carried out, i trust the editor who does the split will be careful to use {{copied}} or a similar template to preserve the chain of attributions. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

I don't agree that Collect can unilaterally declare that consensus wasn't reached, and it's definitely not okay to shop for closers until someone closes it the "correct" way. I'm just hoping that a compromise can be found here, I don't see how holding the RfC open for another 7 days will hurt (7 days happens to be the amount of time an AfD would normally take). I've also seen precedence where an editor wants administrator closure of an RfC, which again is why RfCs are listed at AN and ANRFC. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atama. I know others may disagree but in my opinion notifying participants from an AfD from two years prior would not be prequisite for an RfC of this kind where the proposal is for a merge not deletion. Also, folks should know that this close was/is listed at ANRFC which is where I found it, as I regularly close RfC's listed there, to assist with the backlog. Collect and I have worked together on a number of occasions at BLPN. They are a sincere and dedicated Wikipedian who is passionate about their work. I'm sure this will get sorted out as things cool down. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama. The first lines of WP:ANRFC are:"The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia." Therefore I was expecting an uninvolved editor. Keithbob appears to be an uninvolved editor and therefore Keithbob would do. If I am missing something then I am sorry. + ::::I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

@Collect. The concensus was 5 to 2 (TFD,RJFF,APerson,BlueSalix & N-HH v Robofish & Collect). I did not "vote" and in any case, I weighed the arguments given as is required (because concensus is not a vote) and was persuaded that the article contained several distinct topics. I did not use a "supervote" since that would be contrary to process and was not required in any case. As I have stated above, my ony concern is that somehow we can resolve the split tag and I am sorry that it is proving so contentious. My naturally lazy tendency is to remove the split tag, but I cannot with a clear concience look at either the number of people who have voiced an opinion or the opinions that have been voiced and say that I can see anything other than a concensus to form a disambiguation page. That "Right Wing Socialism" is notable there is no doubt. Judging by the article and the people who have given their opinions, there is no doubt that it is not a single concept. +

@All. I did follow the process given in WP:RFC and I am not sure how this RfC has failed to involve all interested parties. If it will resolve the dispute then I am happy to extend the RfC by another 2 weeks (say) and place a notice along the lines of "You may be interested in this RfC <<link>>" placed on the talk pages of ALL of the participants in the AfDs. Op47 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Op47, what I was referencing in my original comment is the fact that you were reverted by Collect in the original closure when Collect stated "rv non-admin closure", then you went for another closer and got a different non-admin to close it. It just didn't make sense; either you disagree with Collect that it's necessary for an administrator to close it, or you find someone who is an administrator to make the decision. If you just get a second non-admin to close it, of course Collect is going to object again. Look at it this way, if the RFC is open another 7 days and at least the original AfD participants are alerted, that satisfies any objections they have. There really won't be any legitimate reason to object any longer. You may even have more support to split up the article from that attempt. -- Atama頭 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)In case you had not noticed it, that was essentially my position at the start (note that those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this seems pretty clear, IMHO). I would, however, suggest a "clean start" RfC, and hatting the current one lest anyone look at process and not discussion. I still dislike your claim that I was "edit warring" on this, as my past experience has been that back door deletions tend to cause grave problems . Collect (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a back door deletion. There is no request to delete the page. Even if you feel like this is the same as deleting the page, it isn't, no more than moving a page to another name is deleting it, or rewriting an article is a deletion. Let's put it this way, Collect... If someone opened up an AfD and said "I don't really want to delete this article, I want to split it into multiple articles and turn this page into a disambiguation", the AfD would be closed immediately as not being a real AfD. I've seen it happen before, an AfD is intended to nominate articles for deletion, not change, and AfDs which argue for something other than deletion are often closed. Sometimes an AfD results in something other than "keep" or "delete", true, if some kind of compromise is reached in the midst of the discussion. But an AfD is not the correct process to begin this discussion. It's also improper to suggest that we sweep the prior discussion under the rug because nothing was wrong with that discussion even if you came into it late. -- Atama頭 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of every editor who participated in the most recent AfD (April 2012) and has not participated in the RfC:

• Carrite (talk · contribs)
• Monterey Bay (talk · contribs)
• AlexTiefling (talk · contribs)
• Colapeninsula (talk · contribs)
• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
• Borock (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• JayJasper (talk · contribs)
• Nug (talk · contribs)
• Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs)
• Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)

A neutrally-worded notification sent to each individual should satisfy any concern that not enough of a notification was sent out. And again, if this was an AfD, we'd have 7 days to form consensus, so waiting 7 days after notification would give them the same amount of time to participate that an AfD would. -- Atama頭 23:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I checked, every editor on the list is unblocked (so could participate) and with the exception of Outback the koala and Anarchangel, they're all pretty active (those two editors haven't made an edit since 2013). -- Atama頭 23:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you ping and I sing. This whole topic is inherently tendentious and I don't have much interest in bumping bellies with POV warriors over the future outcome of an article that shouldn't even exist on WP. Quoting myself from the last AfD challenge of this: "Delete - Echoing the complaint I made in the last go-round, there is no such single entity as "right wing socialism." There have been a list of proposed and actual socialist programs through the years characterized by critics as "right wing socialism" — but there is no logical, organic connection between, say, the "right wing socialisms" listed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Bismarckian system in Germany and Bernstein's reformism and the pro-war "Social Patriotism" of the World War I era and the "National Socialism" of Hitler. What we have here is List of things characterized as "Right Wing Socialism" in certain times and places by their critics. Which is not an encyclopedic topic. Each and every sub-topic here is the subject of its own article, so far as I am aware — this is a pure fork. Don't let the wall of footnotes distract you, keep your eye on the ball. Carrite (talk)." That was ignored, pity. Have fun. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/92.163.53.142 - serial citation spammer - rollback? 113.210.142.105 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the cites. They appear to be on-topic.--Auric talk 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[28] This IP is openly making edits to Wikipedia on behalf of a banned editor. The IP even links to the off-site post by the banned editor in the edit summaries. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:BAN#Proxying it's perfectly appropriate to make edits suggested by a banned user if they are independently verifiable and a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I haven't examined these edits in detail, but having read the original blog post, it pointed out a number of independently verifiable things that could be changed to present a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's okay if the edits are vouched for by someone independent. If the IP is doing everything only at the direction of the banned individual (as a meatpuppet) that's not allowed, nor would it be allowed if the IP is actually the banned editor doing the edits themselves anonymously. Since we operate by assuming good faith, you'd need evidence pointing to either misbehavior for us to disallow these edits. I'll say that I've done similar actions myself, though not for a banned editor. I've worked with an editor who had a clear COI and made edits on their behalf, but I most definitely did so not by proxy. Many of the edits they suggested that I do, I didn't do because I disagreed with them, and others that I did were applied only after a significant discussion and compromise was reached. So I can sympathize with the IP's position if these edits are being done legitimately. -- Atama頭 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, meatpuppetry isn't allowed. But IP's are perfectly valid editors, so unless someone can show evidence that either (a) the edits are not verifiable, (b) the edits are being made directly by Damien, or (c) the edits violate some other policy, then the edits are perfectly fine. Given that Cla68 is a moderator of the site that posted the blog in question, I suspect the reason he posted this thread has little to do with genuine concern over the edits the IP made. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [29] seems reasonable. P.S. I wouldn't know Peter Damien, whoever that is, if he tripped me. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See banned users. The issue of proxying for banned users is one of the most disruptive that can arise at Wikipedia because the Pollyanna approach of evaluating each edit for its merits flies in the face of WP:Banned means banned. Supporting such edits is a win for liberty, but a large incentive for trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this is not a situation of block evasion, as far as I can see. The last version of Peter's userpage as he edited it suggests a UK connexion (he says he went to a UK university), and all the IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter Damian are English: one in Yorkshire, and the rest in London or elsewhere in the south. Conversely, IP address 41.130.42.159 is located in Egypt — unless Peter's made a big move, it's someone else. No comment on anything else being discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If good information comes as a result of a banned editor making a suggestion on an external site, then the project has been improved. Other than spite, there, is no real reason to reject such an edit out of hand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see myself in an awkward situation by user Lecen.

The article Peter III of Aragon had during two years (since 2011) the image Pedro II de Aragón.jpg on the infobox.

In October 2013, user Srnec changed the image without consensus. We had an edition war, but we began to speak. In this moment, user Lecen (who had had a conflict with me in Pedro II of Brazil) intervened in the article by first time. He accused me of being the cause of the conflict and removed my editions. I said him that was the Srnec's change the cause and that the previous version must be live until the consensus. He didn't hear and presented a complaint against me. And I was punished. Now, he haunts me. I have filed a complaint against another user and he has come to discredit me by my background. And he has returned to delete the previous image, the image of before the discussion, without reasons and also threatens to report me if I restart.--EeuHP (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aren't you just a fountain of edit-warring? We don't deal with content disputes here, but you do have a significant history of violating the rules. Have you tried following WP:DR properly, or are you simply going to rely on reversion again and again across multiple articles. Just because it's been a month since your last edit war on that article, does not mean it's not blockable DP 00:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: the OP has now filed multiple AN3 reports for month-old issues (all closed as stale), and is now complaining around the 'pedia that we're refusing to punish the other party. EeuHP has been advised multiple times that blocks are preventative, not punishment, but they're off in their own world. This WP:BATTLE behaviour is growing tiring ES&L 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you dismiss this out of hand, have you looked at User:Lecen's intervention?

[30] Edit summary Do it again, please

[31] Edit summary You are edit warring. This might lead to sanctions against you. Please, stop.

[32] Edit summary Don't do that or else I'll have to report you

The OP was edit warring but there seems to be a spot of WP:TAG going on, not to mention a little baiting to breach 3RR. Having had dealings with Lecen before, I have seen him edit warring, baiting and generally abusing other editors but it is rarely commented on because of his GA and FA history. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look further back ... this is long-term edit-warring over months, and they've done the same thing over a number of articles ES&L 12:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, eg [33] its been an issue with both. But for this particular example, Lecen is removing a featured picture to impose his preference. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other IMHO. And I'm not surprised to see Asyntax involved who I expect to pop up and defend his friend shortly. WP:Brazil works as a definite clique. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation and full protection for this article.Movieking007 (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's needed here is a CU to deal with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Now at AN3 as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AN3 can be closed - wasn't even filed correctly. And the OP can be warned for forum-shopping. ES&L 12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm speaking of the AN3 report that I filed re Movieking007, who has bright-line violated 3RR. That one was filed properly and should result in a block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a heads-up; nobody is doing anything bad, but some people are getting carried away.

Mt. Gox, the troubled Bitcoin exchange, shut down today, with no warning and no details. NYT: "Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World". Forbes: "Bitcoin's Price Plummets As Mt. Gox Goes Dark, With Massive Hack". Bloomberg: "Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange Goes Offline as Peers Lash Out at Firm". WSJ: "Mt. Gox Website Unavailable; Home Page Appears to Have Been Deleted". All sorts of wild rumors are going around, being echoed through the press, and some are being put into Wikipedia. There's heavy press coverage, but nobody really has solid info, except that their web site and Twitter feed have been blanked and the phones don't answer. There's a "leaked reorganization plan" floating around, which may be fake, but some news outlets believe it. A few more eyes on the article would be appropriate for the next 24 to 48 hours to keep the rumor level under control. --John Nagle (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]