Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829

IP adding references to self, contrary to recently closed RFC

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

---

I was the uninvolved closer at a request at WP:ANRFC on the Firewall (physics) article. The RFC was heavily socked and meatpuppeted. I closed as "no consensus for inclusion" regarding giving credit to a particular scientist (Winterberg) for the original idea of the discovery. An IP claiming to be Winterberg is now repeatedly reinserting refs to himself in the article claiming credit, and saying that the consensus is irrelevant because it was done by non-physicists. Could someone semi-the article and block the IP? [1] [2] [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Article protected by Ohnoitsjamie. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of factual inaccuracies

User:Moderate Intensity Operations has repeatedly added fake information to The British Soap Awards:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

...and several more of the same variety. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify a bit, the user continuously adds a table for 2014 award winners, but there have been no awards in 2014. The source given is simply the 2013 winners and the info in the new table seems to be completely made up. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Have you considered using Twinkle to Welcome them using the one specifically related to requiring reliable sources? I see a crapload of warnings, but not a single welcome and introduction to the rules. Have you even tried discussing rather than templating? ES&L 12:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

When the user is intentionally adding information that they know to be false, it seems like it goes a little beyond informing them that they need proper sources. Also, yes, I created a section on the talk page of the article to enable discussion, albeit a little later than I should have. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, not all of this user's edits are bad. This edit was a good one, correcting the year the awards began (infobox had said 1998; he brought it into agreement with the prose of the article as 1999). I've thanked the editor for that one. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion is no longer relevant as I have now decided to leave Wikipedia. Moderate Intensity Operations (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Newbie quickly racking up infractions...how to deal gently?

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

---

A newbie, User:F.Tromble, is engaging in a number of both subtle and obvious personal attacks, edit warring and forum shopping. Within only two weeks of account creation, they have fallen into conflict with four established editors.
However, per WP:DONTBITE many more serious solutions may be unfair at this point. Upon review, WP:AN3 and WP:RFC/USER seem too harsh this early while WP:3O and WP:DR/N seem geared solely toward content disputes. Arbitration is a last step and per WP:DISPUTE, asking for guidance at ANI seemed the least painful solution. To avoid making this too long, I will post the diffs showing the behavior in question in a collapsable table.

Infractions
Incivility at Template talk:Sunni Islam: 06:34, 10 February 2014 - user accused me of being a member of a religious movement I don't belong to and pushing POV, original research and fringe theories to support such a view across "other pages at Wikipedia."
Incivility at Talk:Seraya Shapshal: 10:04, 7 February 2014 - user assumes (F.Tromble's own words) that User:Toddy1 is POV pushing without prior interaction.
Personal attack and forum shopping at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions: *11:55, 10 February 2014 - sarcastically referring to another editor as a "Bigwig" in the section title and starting with "This one takes the biscuit. I have noticed some misuse of edit summaries by people who apparently should know better." User:AddWittyNameHere pointed out that in the mentioned case, F.Tromble was also guilty of a rude edit summary comment by WittyName here as well as an ad-hominem personal attack other comment here. Rather testy comment directed at User:Неполканов at 13:59, 8 February 2014, all in response to Неполканов's brief request for reliable sources and discussion at the talk page.
Misrepresentation at User talk:Mark Arsten: 06:08, 10 February 2014 - claims I accused him of edit warring at Template talk:Sunni Islam when that clearly wasn't my intent.
Edit warring at Babai the Great: first edit at 12:59, 29 January 2014 which attempted to give the subject a new name Reverted by Toddy1 at 15:32, 2 February 2014 FTromble reverts at 09:57, 7 February 2014, no further discussion on talk Article reverted back to original version by User:David Biddulph at 14:22, 8 February 2014
Edit warring and dishonesty at Seraya Shapshal: First edit by FTromble at 12:44, 27 January 2014; extremely dishonest edit summary claiming grammatical changes, but the edit made serious unsourced content changes Reverted by Toddy1 at 16:12, 6 February 2014 FTromble reverts at 10:01, 7 February 2014, almost copy pasting Toddy1's own edit summary in a mocking fashion Ftromble gets reverted by User:Неполканов, back to the original version, at 12:18, 7 February 2014
Insults and rejection of mediation at User talk:F.Tromble: I tried to advise the guy on the fact that he has only been editing two weeks yet has already had conflicts with four established editors at 02:39, 9 February 2014 FTromble's response at 19:17, 9 February 2014 simply accuses me of being a blindly devoted religious follower and thinking I have a "divine right" to push "propaganda" and fringe theories I respond at 02:46, 10 February 2014 acknowledging that the passive aggressive comments were noticed and advising him that such behavior won't yield positive results FTromble replies at 05:51, 10 February 2014 by simply saying "peace"; it was after that when he amped up the personal attacks as well as bringing up the edit summary conflict again, despite having earlier been told that his edit summaries at Seraya Shapshal were also insulting.

Now, the editor seems intelligent and has made positive contributions to some areas. The main issue here is that, within only two weeks, they have already committed the infractions mentioned above. Since it seems too early for more drastic measures, what would the protocol be in this case? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to respond to these accusations against me one by one please? THere is some misrepresentation of the facts here. F.Tromble (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means do, but I recommend you be brief. There are a lot of diffs to look at. Blackmane (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. In an area in which I have absolutely no interest or knowledge, I see an editor challenging the status quo in a contentious subject and his apparent "newbie" status being somewhat resented by established editors. Far, far worse passes as civil, non-abuse in most every other area, every single day. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:F.Tromble, I wasn't trying to phrase these as accusations. You do make positive contributions and that should be recognized. What I am saying is that you've had some problems early on, and trying to discuss matters with you on your talk page didn't work out. This is an attempt to find an easy solution to the conflict areas as rough early spots like this can snowball; I've seen it happen to new editors and this is an attempt to avoid that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I will be as brief as it is possible to deal with 7 allegations numberer 1 to 7 to make it easier for reference. Perhaps in haste, or maybe just accidentally, Mezzo has skewed the chronology a bit, but things become clearer if we look at things in the correct order of events which would be 5, 6, 2, 7, 4, 1, and finally 3.

5. In this edit I tried to distinguish "the Great" from the other Babai who he opposed by referring to "the Great" the Monk in the text and then as an afterthought before saving I inserted the same phrase at the top of the page to make my edit easier to understand. I only hoped to make things more clear further down the page so that readers would not get confused on such a technicality. I work in the field of religious studies and the confusion between the two Babais is common to non-specialists. If I had intended a name change, surely I would have re-named the page and moved it, but this was absolutely *not* my intention and in fact I get very frustrated by such moves and name changes. Naturally I was upset by the things that user had started to spread about me [10] and perhaps any comment I have made concerning that user which might have hinted at irritation is my reaction to that. If he wants to apologise I am happy to work with him in a supportive manner to improve the very poor conditions of his articles. I did try to re-insert the fact which was removed along with the ill-considered insertion of the alternative name at the beginning but did not kick up any fuss when I was rebuked for my poor solution a few days later after he initiated the campaign to watch my edits having (apparently) been upset by my edit on Shapshal, as will now become clear...

6. Although the second "incident" chronologically it began in response to an edit on Shapshal which I had made prior to the Babai edit.

2. You can see I had previously asked for more info on this POV [11] and had tried to make the related passage in the article more readable [12]. It was immediately reverted by a user [13] accusing me of a dishonest edit summary and making POV changes. He could have chosen to engage in the discussion I had initiated on the topic here but instead immediately started to throw false allegations at me in the edit summary. Seeing he was clearly upset at my attempt I simply assumed that he must have been the one who inserted the POV in the first place and I returned to the discussion board to ask him to talk about it. Mezzo Mezzo says that there was no previous interaction with that user, but as you can see this is simply not the truth of the matter.

7. I think very general comments have been taken too personally here. I ("the guy") just wanted to offer him peace.

4. I naturally thought he was talking about the Template talk:Sunni Islam because I had not interacted with him anywhere else at that point.

1. Is it possible to "accuse" someone of belonging to a religion? I did assume, apparently wrongly to my embarrassment. I did not imagine it would cause offence since it is the religion he was championing. I have apologised for my assumption.

3. I had been thanked for mentioning fish [14] in my last question at the teahouse and thought I had to mention some food item in every question there, hence I started with a Biscuit. The term Big-wig is not defined as having any negative connotations [15] and does not refer to anyone discussed here. Again my very general comment is being taken too seriously.

I genuinely thought MezzoMezzo and I were getting along quite well until after this comment [16]. It seems there is a small degree of "paranoia" or at least suspicion over socks which might be the origin of problems users are having with my challenges. Nevertheless, Mezzo was still being very gentlemanly and cordial with me [17] prior to the other User's comment stoked unnecessarily the embers of Mezzo's bad past experience [18] to make a fire which wasn't there. As I am about to post this message I see a big orange notice about informing other users being discussed if I am starting the discussion about them, since I am not starting the discussion I am assuming all users mentioned by Mezzo have been informed. But if I am interpreting this notice wrongly please be gentle enough to let me know and I will do as I am instructed. I hope this report against me will be seen as a case of misunderstandings and not have a negative impact on my future reputation here at wiki. Many thanks for this opportunity to explain things the way I see them. I am open to advise and do hope to be able to patch things up with Mezzo. F.Tromble (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• The best way to deal with this would be mentoring. F.Tromble, why did you decide to respond to things in such a higgledy-piggledy manner? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would very much appreciate a mentor. Yes please! May I ask why you thought my response is higgledy-piggledy please? I have a small amount of legal training and was always taught to present facts in a chronological way. Thus I sorted out the chronology for readers to better understand the precise sequence of events. Is that what you are asking about sir? F.Tromble (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, in some cases a chronological response is desirable, but in this case, it is simply confusing, and it would've been better to respond to the evidence in the order that the evidence was presented. As you have had legal training, surely you should realize that the best way to present a case is to make it as simple as possible? If you want further information on finding a mentor, you will find Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area and Wikipedia:Mentorship to be a useful read. (And no, I'm not offering my services as a mentor, as there are only a few less suitable people out there for such a task!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you found it confusing. In answer to your question, if I did not get the chronology right from the outset I would have become persona non grata for at least a month lol. The first thing in any case was always to establish the correct sequence of events. Anyway it was not the career for me. :) Thank you very much for the links Luken94. F.Tromble (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A third editor elsewhere has spontaneously mediated some of these issues elsewhere. Based on discussion here and at User:F.Tromble's talk page, the issue seems to have been resolved and the answer to my original question - what to do in this case - seems to be outside involvement but in an informal setting. This can probably be closed now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Longterm disruptions from IP

• 90.224.246.99 (talk · contribs)
• 195.67.67.130 (talk · contribs)
• 95.192.43.205 (talk · contribs)
• Peter-No-Tail (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peter-No-Tail in Americat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charlie Strap and Froggy Ball Flying High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Funck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the above articles and more: same IP range that was active last year, edit warring at a series of articles about Swedish films. Account is again adding unsourced content and removing appropriate templates. Never engages in discussion, never uses edit summaries, never adds sources. In the past one or more of these accounts was blocked, and several articles were protected. Will request renewed protection if that's advised. JNW (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Triple jump

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

---

Please protect Triple jump. There is a streak of IP and new editor vandalism happening there. Trackinfo (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected, thanks. Fram (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing in Michael Grimm (politician)

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

---

Background: There is a section of the Michael Grimm (politician) article which includes (or rather included) an incident where said politician threatened to throw a news reporter off a balcony, and "break him in half". The article attracted some problematic attention since the event was described there.

Not long ago, User:Collect deleted sections of the event's description, including the actual quotes of what the politician said to the journalist. The title "Threats against journalist Michael Scotto" was changed to "Scotto interview" by Collect, despite that Michael Grimm has been described by news media as threatening Scotto.

• User:Collect's reduced version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Grimm_%28politician%29&oldid=595147520

• Before the edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Grimm_%28politician%29&oldid=595146606

After I restored the section, User:Collect came back and reverted me, referring to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I don't see how it's a violation of NPOV to describe a notable incident which has been described by many sources. Can someone here come with some input on this situation? I see a history of edit warring in Collect's block log, and I don't want to participate in one myself. - Anonimski (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Examine the edits. No substantive material was removed -- the need for extended quotes, use of anonymous sources etc., pointed section titles etc. appear on their face to violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

For example: Criminal Investigation v. "Campaign investigation noting that zero criminal allegations about Grimm have been made.

Threats against journalist Michael Scotto v. Scotto interview which appears to assert that a person made actual threats against a person. It is better to leave it up to the reader.

After Scotto had "tossed it back to the studio," the camera—which was still rolling—recorded Grimm quickly walking up to Scotto and leaning in toward his face, while audibly saying, "Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again, I'll throw you off this fucking balcony." When Scotto protested that it was a "valid question," Grimm replied, "No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy." v. Grimm then appeared to intimidate Scotto, saying that he would "break (Scotto) in half." appears to contain the salient facts without breaching WP:UNDUE.

And of course the wonderful An un-named former staffer for Grimm and NY1-TV political director Bob Hardt have reported that Grimm has intimidated reporters on previous occasions. which is pure innuendo ascribed to an anonymous source. Cheers. In the case at hand, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations are clear -- I know Silly Season has started -- but this sort of innuendo pushing and overstatement is absured -- oh and one last bit

a Houston-based former girlfriend and fundraiser of Grimm's was inserted as a parenthetical claim about a donor who was charged with improper donations ... and the "girlfriend" bit has no place in the BLP at all. Grimm again has faced no charges or allegations of violating the law per the source. Collect (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Collect prior to bringing the issue here? Please remember that ANI is for matters requiring administrative action, and not for content disputes (though BLP issues may at times require administrative attention). I don't see evidence that you've attempted to discuss your edits with Collect. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He made no comment other than his "edit summary" of Reverted a disruptive edit that user Collect did in three steps. Grimm has been described by media as threatening the reporter. As for the deletion of the related quotes and other info: Wikipedia is not censored.. Which appears to be quite clear as to his position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's all I saw too, which was an inappropriately aggressive edit summary to use when another editor has reverted on BLP and NPOV grounds. "Not censored" is not the same as "anything goes." Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see that this was brought here to get wider attention. Collect's version should be held up as a great example of how to summarize controversy in an NPOV way and not putting in undue weight. Maybe these diffs can be added as an example to a policy page?.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• I am sorry that you interpreted my edit summary as aggressive, but I tried to be brief. Anyway, I thought that the statements we made in our edits was sufficient discussion for the issue to be brought here. As for User:Cube_lurker's feedback on this...is it really OK (and NPOV) to remove the quotations that directly relate to the incident itself? As for the WP:BLP issue: how can it be violation of the "Biography" policy to describe when someone threatens a news reporter? The statements came from Grimm himself, in front of a camera, and were notable enough to be covered by lots of media outputs. Is that "likely to be challenged"? - Anonimski (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  We sumarize. In the article about his appology he has 4-5 sentences of quotes. We also don't use all of those either. We present facts in an encyclopedic fashion and let the reader draw their conclusions. Individual matters may be debateable, however when you compare the 2 versions in whole, One is far more NPOV than the other. One is far more what a wikipedia article should be.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fully endorse Collect's summary. I don't know if it's "textbook", since the words "implied" and "appeared to" are still in there. Anonimski, leaving quotes in or not is a matter of editorial judgment. We shouldn't overdo it. One could quibble over the "fucking balcony", which has taken on a life of its own--but as Collect implies (!), when the cucumber season is over this won't be so important anymore. Let's face it, reliable sources also report things that are of no lasting value whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• ANI is a poor forum for such discussions, and a couple of edit summaries do not constitute substantive discussion. I don't think you've quite assimilated how NPOV and BLP are applied in practice: I encourage you to use the article talkpage to discuss your concerns, bearing in mind that Collect has provided a detailed summary of his concerns and their basis in policy. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not the news: you seem to be approaching the subject from a news-based and somewhat sensationalized point of view, not a biography-in-an-encyclopedia position. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I retract my notification then, but I still think that much of the editing was tendentious, especially the title change where "Threats against journalist" was removed. - Anonimski (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, there's another thing (in general, not necessarily to Anonimski). We like to use words like "threaten" as if they're always clear; they're not. The other day I told an editor, "I'd hate to see you get blocked for taking this too personally", to which they said, "Are you really threatening me?" Well, maybe, maybe not. I didn't think I was, since I wasn't necessarily going to do it, and I didn't literally say "I'm going to block you unless..." But they interpreted it as a threat (they wouldn't have interpreted it as such if I weren't an admin, of course). In other words, the statement that something is a threat is frequently a matter of interpretation or, to state it incorrectly but fashionably, "a POV term, dude". And one consideration is, is it to be taken seriously? Not just, would this guy literally break me in half or is that a metaphor, but also, is he really likely to go and hurt me in this public space in front of the camera? So there may have been a threat of sorts, but most likely not that someone would be broken in half or, really, thrown off a balcony (let alone a fucking balcony--another metaphor)--or even physically attacked there and then. If this is too long and boring and you don't see the point of it, you shouldn't use words like "threaten", unless it's in the form of "according to the NYT, X threatened to throw Y off the balcony". There. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While I have everyone's attention - I suggest looking at Talk:Chiropractic wherein I suggest that when an opening paragraph of an article has a readability worse than 95% of all Wikipedia articles, that improvement is to be sought - and keeping the salient material results in a readability at the 26th percentile (a leap of over 20% of Wikipedia articles) -- not too bad for a technical/medical article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be closed. If there was edit-warring, that is a matter for the edit-warring notice board. I don't know anything about Grimm, but incidents like this deserve little attention, unless they are seen as part of a pattern, receive on-going extensive coverage or have significant consequences. None of those conditions apply, and if Collect has cut the coverage down to one section of two paragraphs, then he has probably left too much in. TFD (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:LAWYERING

I’m going to provide a good bit of background because I think it’s necessary to understand the situation. There exist within Wikipedia a group of POV-pushers who take issue with the word American being applied to the citizens of the United States of America. Their POV-pushing has mainly focused on Names for United States citizens and Americans, but also has extended into other articles. I have undone some of their actions, and I have also (successfully) sought administrator assistance in opposing them.

The POV-pushers in question are a group of bigots who wish to inflict Spanish linguistic norms upon the English language. They contend that North America and South America are one continent called America, and that the word American should not be used to refer to the people of the United States of America, but rather to all the peoples of the new world. In talk page discussions they tend to make up novel expressions to refer to the people of the United States.

On the 7th of February an IP editor with no other editing history inserted a completely un-sourced paragraph into Names for United States citizens which contained the claim that the new world came to be known as America. The paragraph gives no additional context. For example: It doesn’t say that it came to be known as America in Spanish, nor does it say that it came to be known as America until it came to be called North America and South America. Because the labeling of the entire new world as America is one of the core tenants of the POV-pushers I described earlier I became immediately suspicious. However, because I assume good faith (when appropriate) I didn’t accuse the IP editor of POV-pushing. Instead I reverted their edit for being un-sourced. I figured that when they provided a source I could use that source to give their claim the necessary context.

Instead a small edit war ensued with User:Coquidragon, User:BilCat, and User:The Bushranger trying to war the paragraph in without a source while I attempted to refer them to WP:BURDEN and WP:V. It ultimately culminated in User:The Bushranger inserting a source.

Now that you know the background I would like to explain that I am not here because of a content dispute, and I am not here to complain about User:Coquidragon and User:BilCat being a couple of Randies. I am here because of a particular comment that User:The Bushranger posted on my talk page.

He said: “Please remember that according to WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."”

This is the first time I have ever seem an administrator engage in Wikilawyering. Bushranger is well aware that the text he quoted is from the portion of WP:V that addresses original research. He is well aware of the way that WP:V is routinely applied to remove un-sourced statements from Wikipedia. He is well aware of the fact that the removal of un-sourced statements is an essential part of maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. He is well aware of the fact that using the wording of a rule to subvert the meaning of a rule is prohibited. And he is well aware of the fact that the way I interpreted WP:V is the way that WP:V is meant to be interpreted and is interpreted by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.

I am here to ask that User:The Bushranger be sanctioned for willfully misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. An administrator should not be permitted to take the attitude that “the rules say whatever I want them to say right now”. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[[19]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• My statement is, in fact, the way WP:V is interpreted; the section of the WP:V page it was on is irrelevant. The policy is simply that a source does not have to be in an article, unless the article is a BLP, it need only exist, and while it's unfortunate that 76* was previously unaware of this, it doesn't change that that is accepted consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hm. Well, on the face of it, The Bushranger is right: statements that aren't supported directly by an inline citation don't have to be removed simply because they don't have an inline citation (other than BLP issues, of course). They can be removed, but they don't have to be; that is indeed what {{cn}} is for (not to mention that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue). Things that are self-evident or clearly and easily verifiable without an explicit source don't actually need an explicit source. Basically, what Bushranger is saying is that, though all facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable somehow, they don't all need to be backed by an inline citation, which is true. His quote of policy was perhaps not the best one to support his statement, but the statement itself is true.

  However, if it has in fact been removed (i.e. challenged), it needs a reliable source before it should be inserted back in, which is what WP:BURDEN (a subsection of verifiability) says: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source, so IP76 was right, too. I think it was a bit silly for IP76 to remove such a seemingly common-knowledge paragraph (and perhaps that's why the other editors didn't immediately provide a source); a citation needed template would've been better imo, but maybe that's just me: they were well within their rights to remove it. There's nothing that obligates them to go through the intermediate steps. In an ideal world, what would've happened after either the tag or the removal is: instead of edit-warring over the paragraph without a source, Coquidragon and/or BilCat would've raised a discussion on the talk page, presumably something to the effect of "Hey, this paragraph seems like it's pretty much common-knowledge to me, I don't think we need to directly source it." IP76: "I don't know about that, I'd like to see a source for it, per WP:PROVEIT." The rest: "[grudgingly:] *sigh* Okay, fine, let's dig up a source." Source is found, paragraph reinstated with the source cited inline, everyone's happy. Here, instead, an edit war happens, which is distinctly not ideal, but it ends when The Bushranger steps in and reinstates the paragraph, and more importantly adds a source for it unprompted five minutes later.

  So, really, I'm not sure what your case against Bushranger is; they didn't really do much edit-warring and in fact complied with your request, and their statement about verifiability wasn't wrong (though perhaps not apropos or quoted particularly well). I'd say trouts to BilCat and Coquidragon for edit-warring, a trout for the IP for making mountains out of molehills (you really should've discussed it with The Bushranger before coming here), and The Bushranger gets maybe a minnow for not including the inline citation in their initial edit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Minnowing is accepted, as that is, indeed, what I should have done there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• • I guess I've learned what to do (or not to do) for the future. "Strout" is received as a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, I read the accusation from the IP, the explanation given, his comment on my talkpage which starts with "What the hell are you doing?," and I see that there is much baggage behind its edit, baggage which was not know to me at the time of the edit. I only saw an anonymous IP delete content which is common knowledge (there was no POV-pushing intended), and I restored the info, adding the "Citation needed" tag, and explaining the "not-necesarily" needed mid-step of adding a tag before deleting content, step that I assume would be received in good faith. Thanks to the editors for the explanations here given.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Seems the simple way to resolve this is to find a source and craft a line or two that reflects it. Best one I know of is...

The Fourth Part of the World: The Race to the Ends of the Earth, and the Epic Story of the Map That Gave America Its Name by Toby Lester (Simon and Schuster, 2009)

That source's Preface gives a good overview of what was called what and when, especially with regard to the name "America" and what that was used to describe at the time. The e-book is available (free) at the above link so everyone involved can read the source for themselves. There are other sources but that one is a particularly good book - well written, well researched and professionally published. Everything subsequent is a content dispute. Stalwart111 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issue is already done, actually. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Then I have nothing further to contribute! LOL. It's actually a very good book - well worth a read. Stalwart111 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And my impression was that everything else was a content dispute. Am I wrong? Stalwart111 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

HectorMoffet

HectorMoffet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please review this user's actions in repeatedly adding comments to my talk page when I've said that I don't want them (either there or directly in my archives) and threats to harass me, on- and off-wiki, if I don't stop removing the comments? Diffs:

• My talk page: initial edit I remove the comment it's readded threat of harassment another threat of harassment another post I explain that I am removing the thread per WP:REMOVE and don't take kindly to threats he adds it back Crisco 1492 reverts (and warns him about edit-warring) Hector comes back again Iselilja undoes the edit, saying “please stop this” Cirt warns Hector about harassing me Hector comes back to my talk page with more threats of harassment over the next six months

• editing my talk page archives: Archive 21, I tell him not to, Archive 23 ("we can spend a lifetime arguing about it"), he does it again, The Rambling Man undoes his edit and warns him about badgering me.

HectorMoffet seems to think that I have to keep messages from him on my talk page or in my archives as a matter of public record, no matter who points out to him that I can remove them if I wish (something he has done for messages to him, I note). I don't see why I should have to put up with threats of on- and off-wiki harassment because I won't bow to his demand to have his criticism of me in my user page archives. After all, he's already called me the "TFA fuhrer" and taken his criticisms of me not just to Jimbo's talk page but the talk page of a Signpost editor and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bencherlite, so it's not as though he hasn't made his views widely known already - there is no need, apart from harassment, for him to carry on editing my talk page like this. Bencherlite^Talk 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The supposed RFCU is straight up harassment by HectorMoffet. As Crisco notes in it, he seems intent on committing suicide by admin. Resolute 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it suicide by admin, necessarily, i assume he's just pissed off about something. He's apparently not listening to advice from several other people, so I've blocked him until he agrees to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Floquenbeam. While I've got everyone's attention, can I just spam ANI to point out that WP:TFAR is open for business 24/7/365 for suggestions for "Today's Featured Article". If nobody makes suggestions, then your friendly neighbourhood TFA coordinator/czar/fuhrer has to choose something anyway, so join in today and share the criticism with me! Bencherlite^Talk 15:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It's Bigwig. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Khabboos

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting [20] is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".

*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You said that the user has lied.

Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.

Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?

Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.

EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.

You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

AcidSnow Could you explain to me why the sentence "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera" is not relevant as it appears to be sourced? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your a 100% right Flat Out that it "appears" to be sourced and if that was the only thing the source said or that it was a "hate crime" or anything related to it than it would also be ok to add. However, the article goes on to say they were out to "avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here". As you can see it was done out of anger and nothing to do with persecution. It is also a miss representation of the source as the section it's being used is discussing persecution of Hindus. This is just another one of his attempts to push his POV. Those were the three reasons: nothing to do with persecution, miss representation of the article, and POV pushing. AcidSnow (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, AcidSnow. It's important to remember that not everyone has the benefit of all of the details of the disagreement and that you will need to be specific both here and at arbitration. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Flat Out I have edited my response at the Request for mediation.. Could you close it now since it's now pointless to have it open? Also do I continue too wait for assistance? AcidSnow (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I cant close. I will review your additions at Arbitration - Good luck Flat Out let's discuss it 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored this discussion because it is still ongoing. If it was removed due to lack of discussion, it is because Khabboos has staled it even though I have asked him to return to it. This is not about a "dispute", but rather his inappropriate behavior. All Khabboos is trying to do is shift the discussion from his inappropriate behavior to this "dispute" he is "trying" to "resolve". In fact he would rather see me banned. When he responded to me, as you can see here, he has no desire to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior and even denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There can be no mediation because: (1) "the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors" (see Wikipedia:Mediation); and (2) because User:AcidSnow has not agreed to mediation. We need to discuss the behaviour issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour

AcidSnow has said that Khabboos provides citations that did not contain the information that they were claimed as a source for. I have looked at three of the citations that AcidSnow has complained about, and his/her complaints are justified.[21][22][23] Khabboos, do you have an explanation for these?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are also cases where Khabboos has provided a genuine citation, but the citation only supports part of what he/she has added. This example happened today.[24] The citation is completely accurate for the second sentence, but does not support the first sentence.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, thank you for trying to keep this discussion going, but I doubt he well bother responding. As I have asked him to return, but he would ignored me and denied the discussions existence. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

200.120.73.176

Two-day old account from Santiago, 200.120.73.176, stumbled upon the Holocaust in Poland with absolutely no interest in the subject.[25] Began by removing names of historians and citations,[26][27] almost from the get-go using abusive edit summaries (please look around, he writes abusive summaries with virtually every other edit he makes: "laughable", "horror show", "subjective waffle", "pointless", "preaching", "puffery", "completely absurd" and so on). Now, when reverted,[28] becomes hysterical, starts screaming,[29] and removes even the {{cite journal}} formatting, blanket-reverts quotations from reputable historians etc. I can clearly see an agenda, but would not go as far as to suspect a sockpuppet of an established user. However, if you look closely at the nature of his edits, they are borderline disruptive almost all the way through, and very standoffish.[30] Poeticbent talk 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Just checking some of these edits, I get the impression that this person is trying to slim down the article by getting rid of chaff. For example, the Bryan Gaensler edit ("laughable") makes a good point, and it is rather ridiculous to make the claim that he's removing; this isn't abusive. Regarding Yad Vashem (this edit, he has a good point about this being opinion (unless I'm missing something, "Righteous Among the Nations" isn't something with strict criteria), and the later edit makes a sensible comment about not everyone getting recognised. Here he removes something that, in all fairness, really doesn't belong — good encyclopedia articles just say that something's the fact, or they say that it's disputed, but when they can use footnotes like ours, they don't mention specific authors in the text unless they're focusing on the authors themselves, which isn't the case here. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Summaries are abusive, not the edits. Poeticbent talk 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out errors in articles is not abusive. Correcting mistakes is not disruptive. What is the agenda that you clearly perceive? 200.120.73.176 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way are the summaries abusive? I've put "rmv puffery" in an edit summary quite often. ES&L 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, Nyttend, am I missing something here? You refer to a comment the IP supposedly made about Yad Vashem, but then link to an article about Bryan Gaensler (what's he got to do with this request here?). ?. And *there are* actually pretty strict criteria for "Righteous Among the Nations", although I guess one could say that "there are no strict criteria for winning a Nobel Prize" just as well. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge what is "opinion" and what is "fact", but rather to report what reliable sources say. If there's some issue with WP:UNDUE or something that's one thing, but this does not appear to be the case here. It's more just that the IP doesn't understand/doesn't like standard Wikipedia policies (personally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the edit summaries, but letting them know what the policies are would be a good thing). Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Two mistakes by me. (1) I meant to link this diff, which is definitely about Yad Vashem. (2) I always thought it was a general term for non-Jews who opposed the Holocaust, and the intro to righteous Among the Nations, "an honorific used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis", seemed to confirm what I was thinking. I didn't scroll down, so I failed to understand that it's a title that's officially awarded to specific people. Just please note that the Bryan Gaensler edit is somewhat relevant, since it was one of the diffs that Poeticbent raised, and I still agree with my original statement about "laughable" not being abusive in this context. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Poeticbent, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care about the edit summaries. It's the edit warring and the refusal to engage in meaningful discussion that's irking me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted the IP (not an account, obviously) on The Holocaust in Poland and warned them for edit warring. Whatever the truth (or the right thing) may be, they do not have consensus on the talk page for their edit. I don't see how this needs to be an ANI thread at this point. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ edit warring

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

---

Would someone uninvolved please step in at this current RFA talk page? Multiple users have spent the better part of two days repeatedly reverting one piece of commentary back and forth. Since this concerns an open RFA, it's a potentially sensitive issue; perhaps a crat is willing to step up and figure things out? There are a number of editors to notify about this post; please give me a few minutes and I should have them all covered. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That crap was originally posted by an IP....likely a ban evader...that is why I have been removing it.--MONGO 18:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to remove someone else's comments, you need a damn sight better reason than "likely" ban evasion. — Scott • talk 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Like hell I do...there are only two probable explanations...the IP is a ban evader and or a chickenshit that doesn't want to use their real username.--MONGO 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fail to see what this has to do with me. I have reinstated material because WP:TPO requires a discussion for material to be removed where there are clear objections to it being removed. I do not accept that the entire 59k of material is as it has been characterised. If there is content that clearly breaches WP:TPG it should be identified and selectively removed. There are clear objections to the content being censored en masse and it therefore should be discussed, not edit warred over. I was incorrect to state in my edit summary that the author had self-identified. That was an error and I apologise. For the reasons stated above I have reinstated the material once, I will not be doing so again. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Once an editor suggested using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reference, I had a feeling the dramu would only escalate. How about I withdraw my candidacy now and we just close this mess now before someone gets blocked? No point to give the author(s) hiding before the IP even more satisfaction. I'd appreciate a courtesy blank of the anon's post once the discussion is archived; if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've moved that post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎/Statement by 153.19.58.76, since it's so long. Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see Future Perfect at Sunrise just protected the page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

And, sorry, while I see your motive in doing this, I have deleted that page, and removed the posting from the main page again too. The way I see it, there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict. Why is that person posting from an anonymous IP? Either because they are a banned user and can't post otherwise (in which case it obviously has to be removed), or because they are an established user and don't want it connected to them – in which case it's an equally obvious breach of WP:SCRUTINY. In either case, it's obviously abusive and should not be allowed to stand. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; where it's plain obvious that something comes from a *** sock there is no reason to bend over backwards to accommodate the ***. I've protected the page for a few hours to stop the unacceptable edit-warring too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it's abusive? The comment was mostly a succinct account of some of the candidate's behaviour in relation to the Eastern European Mailing List and its members up to late 2013, supported by diffs. I looked at about half the diffs and found that they did support the claims they nominally supported, so they were not a breach of WP:NPA. Of course the IP was probably an enemy from some past conflict - but we don't know if they're banned, and they may have a valid reason to not disclose their identity. I know nothing about Piotrus, so I found the information helpful in deciding whether to support his candidacy.

Also, since it is clear that you believe the IP's comment should be hidden, and were a party to the edit war, was it appropriate for you to use your admin tool to lock the talk page in your preferred version? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea what this is about. No recollection of interaction with the individuals involved. And no idea of the relevance or truth of the material posted. But if someone goes about writing a piece that long (whether a diatribe or otherwise) it warrants remaining on an RfA talk page. There's nothing overtly abusive about it, and if it's meaningless people will see through it, but a lot of RfA lies with someone character and history.

(And having someone post a diatribe about some long, long past drama does no hard to someone's chances during and RfA IMO. It can be a test of someone's suitability. Or it can settle minds that any concerns they have belong with ancient history.)

As a separate issue (so far as it can be separated), I don't agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise admin actions. He/she first removed the material, then locked the page, and deleted the material from a subpage. That's a scorched earth approach that goes beyond merely locking a page at The Wrong Version to prevent warring. A sufficient numbers of editors are involved in the dispute to demonstrate the issue is not cut-and-dry enough to warrant unilateral admin action of that force. --Tóraí (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fail to see how your obvious view above on the content you deleted does not conflict with this explanation at WP:AN, "See my rationale here: [48]. – By the way, before anybody starts speculating about "involved" admin actions, I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect. " You knew exactly what you were doing and why. I suggest you reinstate the sub-page at let others be the better, neutral judge than you can be. Leaky Caldron 20:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What "view about the content"? I have not expressed any. In fact, I personally would probably agree with many of the views expressed by that IP, but that's neither here nor there. Just because the IP may have been right about some things doesn't stop it being an abusive sock post in breach of – at least – WP:SCRUTINY, or – much more likely – WP:BAN. I see with some sadness that most of the people who rally against the removal of the sock posting are just those who are critical of Piotrus, and those who want it removed are those who are supportive of him. I, at least, am utterly free from suspicion of being Piotrus' friend or ally; in this sense I am certainly more qualified to take this decision from a neutral perspective than anybody else who has been involved here so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "view" for example, "that there is simply no room for rational doubt that this is from an old participant in the EEML conflict with a heavy grudge and very deep personal involvement in the conflict." Maybe, but even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. No reason to remove all of that stuff without discussion. Leaky Caldron 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the comment and then protect the page? Why didn't you just protect the version that existed when you clicked "Protect"? It's clear from your comments here that you think that, because the IP is a banned user or has no good reason to hide his identity when criticising this person, their comment should be removed. You removed it, becoming a party to the edit war, then protected the page. Isn't that WP:INVOLVED? What am I missing? (I'm not looking for sanctions, admonishments or anything, just either a sensible explanation as to where I'm wrong in my analysis here, or an acknowledgement that you made a mistake.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Future, did you consider that the poster may have been someone who left Wikipedia of their own volition? They may be someone who never had an account. Or they may be someone who has lost access to their account (forgotten password, no email or disused email). The options you lay out are not the only ones.

I'm just as uninvolved and I don't see any evidence of a banned user or a sock (just someone who holds a grudge). Are we to consider all unflattering IP posts with suspicion? Should we assume they are all socks or banned users? --Tóraí (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Taken over protection I've taken over the protection. I was about to protect the page myself and I was doing research into the edit war first. When I went back to push the buttons, Fut Prof had already done so. However, had he not done so and only reverted, I would've ended up protecting it in whichever state it was in at the time and that would've been exactly as it is now. So, I've taken over the protection since there are questions about his revert. I don't consider this to incriminate him at all, I'm simply doing it so the question about whether the page should be locked or not are answers: yes, it should be locked. The appropriateness of the IP's comments have no bearing on whether or not protection was appropriate. It was.--v/r - TP 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I was also trying to sort through the mess (I wasn't going to jump straight to full-protect, but whatever, stylistic differences I suppose) when FPaS protected. However, I'd say that if you feel strongly enough that there is a right version to wait for it to appear, you are almost certainly not impartial enough to protect it. If you feel strongly enough to revert back to your right version right before you protect, then you are definitely not impartial enough to protect it. Good end, bad means. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• There is no evidence the IP is evading a ban. I don't think there's any doubt that the IP is someone with an account that has been in conflict with the EEML, but that is no reason on its own to remove the listing. And MONGO, for you to complain about the piece and then to call the IP a "chickenshit" is hilariously hypocritical. The post was very relevant to the entire RfA, particularly given Piotrus' actions in this very RfA, and was fairly lacking in any personal attacks; everything in it was backed up by diffs, and they were fairly accurate as well - I know, because I checked a lot of them. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, particularly not when backed up by the weight of evidence that there was. FPaS' decision to remove the post and then protect the page is, to be blunt, an abuse of their tools, which is disappointing for an admin I usually respect (I wouldn't have cared which version was protected, as long as the protecting admin didn't supervote; I requested protection in the hope that this wouldn't happen, and evidently I was wrong to expect it to be protected as it was.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Had the chickenshit used their username to post their diatribe I wouldn't have removed it.--MONGO 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and given that FPaS deleted the subpage whilst doing their supervoting, can someone restore that, with full protection active please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agreeing with Lukeno94. Perfect summary and conclusion.--Razionale (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily have seen a strong need to delete that subpage. As such, I left a note for the deleting sysop, but obviously I respect his judgement on the delete. I can't say that editing immediately before protecting is something I'd have done. Pakaran 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem here, too much respect for an Admin. who has provided not one piece of evidence to justify removing a bit of controversial research and protected a page to his preferred version. How about respecting the editor's who want it restored. Just do it. Leaky Caldron 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Luke, The piece was relevant to the RFA, and shouldn't of been removed at all!, What ever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED these days?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• To echo this, and Anthonyhcole's similar comments, please take a look down this page at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand-related_drama.3F where Future Perfect is acting very similarly on another matter (and now that thread has been closed, he has been straight back to John Nagle's user talk: to repeat the same action, despite very clear requests not to).

AIUI, admins have extra tools but have no privileged voice in discussions. Editors are equal, and equal with admins. I believe this to be an absolutely fundamental part of how WP is constituted.

When we have an issue like this, it is thus a perilous action for an admin to start using admin tools to remove or hide parts of a discussion, good or bad. Editors making decisions or commenting on RfA or SPI should be allowed to remain in full possession of the facts. It is even worse when such actions are being carried out by an admin who is deeply INVOLVED themselves. For an admin to then start threatening blocks of GF editors who object is simply unacceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, how is this WP:NOTCENSORED? I genuinely don't see how the post falls under that category. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the way I see it .... His post & actions were in essence being hidden so thus I viewed it as censorship .... (Perhaps i'm wrong but agree to disagree and all that.) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I understand now, thanks for explaining. But then, any comments removed from pages, or modified, would also technically have to fall under WP:NOTCENSORED, even if it is not obscene at all. What I was basically doing is moving the text to a new page so that people don't have to scroll through 59kb of text to get to the bottom of the page. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• You're welcome :), -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• As one of the participants in the edit war, I was not in a position to protect the page or vaporize the subpage which was created to house the IP diatribe. However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA, and every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. The IP editor (who geolocates to a university in Gdansk) has *0* other edits, and (from the polished look of the section) is obviously not a new editor. It's blindingly obvious that he's a ***, and more than likely not is a banned editor looking to extract a pound of flesh from Piotrus for his role in the EEML debacle. I gave the IP post all of the consideration it deserved (very little) and deleted it. When I was reverted, I had intended not to delete it again, and attempted to discuss it with the editor who reverted me. [31] When that was discarded out of hand ("not interested in hearing defense for censorship, sorry")[32] , I proceeded to revert it twice more (and the same editor undid my edits while screaming about "censorship" and a general how-dare-you-disagree-with-me attitude which I found offputting. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't like *** from banned editors. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that (alone among all of the other edit warriors) I have not !voted in this RFA (and am likely to not do so, as I have too many conflicting views on this candidacy). Excepting FPAS and EpicGenius, all of the other people who removed the section were people who support Piotr's RFA. Nope. I haven't voted in the RfA, or (IIRC) the last one either. Harassment is harassment regardless of whether one supports or opposes the candidate, and it should be simply removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

...every single one of the people who restored it (or have cast aspersions at FPAS) have made their dislike for Piotr clear. Nope. I don't know the guy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, given how clearly the post exposes your abusive actions, you shouldn't try to paint yourself as even remotely uninvolved. And I don't really know Piotrus either, but the evidence is both overwhelming and not "harassment" - that's the response of people involved trying to cover their arses. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Luke, you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation. At the same time you appear to be easy to influence, apparently because you're lazy and not particularly... astute. If you actually paid attention you'd note that I never "tried to paint myself as even remotely uninvolved". You are imagining things or you're deliberately misrepresenting things. Either way, doesn't speak well of you. Second, if you think that cowardly anonymous rant was anything but a bunch of bullshit upon bullshit, with irrelevant and false "diffs" sprinkled throughout to give it a semblance of legitimacy, well, what can I say, some people are easy to fool. It didn't "expose" any of my "abusive actions". Again, you are imagining things or you are deliberately misrepresenting things. It was harassment. It was bullshit. It was posted by some anonymous coward. And you, crying "notcensored!" like some twelve year old who doesn't get his way and calls his mommy a fascist, want to enable the harassment and humiliation by anonymous IPs of editors who have done more for Wikipedia than you a hundred times over. Editors, who, frankly, you are not even fit to comment upon (and no, I am not referring to myself). Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, I read quite a few of the diffs, and normally I would be one of those reverting such a set of evidence - but normally it is invalid. Everything I read backed up what the IP said, and none of the diffs I read were even slightly misrepresented. Your desperation to cover your arse is fairly amusing, and fairly pointless. I do not have "a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation" - you are blinded by your own abusive actions, and are desperate to hide them by any means necessary. How sad. Truly, who is the coward here - the person who didn't use their account because they knew of how much abuse they would get (and yes, I've seen the Encyclopedia Dramatica page), or the person desperately trying to cover up overwhelming evidence that shows they should've been banned a while ago? Hmm? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wait. You're saying that this poor person didn't use their account "because they knew of how much abuse they would get" and then refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Essentially implying that if they had posted under their real name either *I* or maybe Piotrus or someone else would've... done a hit piece on them? Look you moron. It was Piotrus and me and others who were harassed on ED by these people, not the other way around. I really hope you're just sitting there lying because it's hard to believe that anyone would be that stupid. You don't have a single, not one, not a shred of evidence that *I* ever "abused" anyone on or off Wiki, outed them or otherwise harassed them. (Criticized them? Sure). So don't make accusations like that, and at least - please! - think a second or two before you write this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk)

• Still trying to cover up, I see. I never said that it would be you that made the abuse on ED, did I? No, that's what you wanted me to have said. Nor did I say that you had abused anyone - I said you had gamed the system, and the EEML ArbCom case categorically proves that. Nor do you have any evidence that this person ever had an account - it is not implausible that they have always edited as an IP. The diffs were not "fake", so that's just you lying through your teeth (whilst accusing others of lying). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you just implied it, in your usual slimy way. As to whether this person ever had an account... please. No, they just popped out of the blue with an IP address talking about stuff that happened in 2006, with a super-nicely formatted bordered and aligned text, digging out diffs on stuff that nobody, not even me remembers, and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies! Stop being daft. (Actually, personally I'm pretty sure it wasn't just one user behind that post but that it was a "group effort" but nm) Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Implied it in my usual slimy way? What utter bollocks you spout in your desperation to try and continuing gaming the system, revealing you have no idea what I do here, but that you're just trying to discredit anyone who opposes you. The IP address may be new, but it doesn't mean that the person behind it wasn't using a different IP. There are several other reasons why they may be using an IP without just jumping to the "OMG they must be banned viewpoint"; someone who has retired from Wikipedia, someone who lost their password and has since changed emails (which is far from uncommon), someone who has undergone courtesy vanishing, or anything along those lines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If they had been "courtesy-vanished" they would not have been supposed to be editing at all, most certainly not in an area in which they were involved in disputes – as this person must have been – before they vanished. If they were simply retired or had lost their account, but were otherwise in good standing, then their very first words in that posting would have been: "I am former editor so-and-so, posting in this way because ...", or at least "I once met Piotrus during a dispute over article so-and-so in 2010". Any reasonable editor with the wiki-experience that this person undoubtedly had would have known that they would otherwise have been immediately suspicious; the fact that they nevertheless did not volunteer this information is proof enough of foul play. Simple common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Except that they may well have not wanted to disclose their account for the very reasons that have become obvious; the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek, and, given the various underhanded tactics that this group of editors have engaged in, if their account easily leads to the finding of their real name, they may well be very nervous of real-life repercussions. So no, not "simple common sense" - you're just seeing what you want to see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Keep digging Luke, you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous. First you claim, or excuse me, imply, that the anon IP posted his attack as an anon IP because they were afraid that I or Piotrus would make attack pages about them on Enclycopedia Dramatica or something. When I call you out on your bullshit, you desperately call that "bollocks" and proceed to argue that ... the poor anon IP lost his password or something. So which is it, where they posting their attacks as an anon IP because they were scared because of what I might do to them or because they lost their password or something? And then when Future Perfect points out that you're talking nonsense you ... switch back to implying that they posted as an anon IP because "the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek" and because they were afraid of "real-life repercussions" from something I might do. And this after you originally denied that you were implying exactly that. Calling your behavior "slimy" is putting it very very very mildly. I have never outed, abused, harassed ANYONE you little twerp! If you had any decency you'd strike those accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Even in that case they ought still not have edited. WP:SOCK is quite clear on this: pursuing interpersonal disputes is never among the legitimate exceptions justifying posting under undisclosed identity. Or, if they felt there was some exceptionally serious justification for an exception, they ought to have privately contacted Arbcom or some administrator so that they could have vouched for their legitimacy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Marek, you claim you've never harassed anyone. So, explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? There are a multitude of legitimate reasons as to why the IP was posting as an IP. One reason is the existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; the fact is, it is a well-known location for that sort of abuse to occur). That is a reason for them not disclosing their identity, and a reason for them editing as an IP. I gave other reasons as well afterwards, all of which are potential reasons. "The likes of Marek" is a reference to your clique, which has been proven to be an extremely abusive one, with editors having a history of sockpuppetry and a multitude of other violations. The irony of you calling other editors "slimy" is quite strong, to be honest. As is the irony of you accusing users of bullshitting, because that's all you've done since you first joined your clique/cabal. And you're pretty lucky that DangerousPanda hasn't yet found these latest edits, given that you were warned several posts ago to stop making personal attacks (which you make whilst accusing other people of making attacks... ironic yet again). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

explain to me how your comments to both the IP and myself aren't harassment? - you seem not to understand the difference between "criticism" and "harassment". They are not the same. Worse you have a twisted sense of morality, as in *you* appear to believe that if you belittle someone else, if *you* make false bullshit accusations against someone else, if *you* enable attacks and humiliation of Wikipedia editors then that's all hunky dory. But as soon as someone points out to you how messed up this behavior is OMG! THEY IS HARASSING ME! Do you have some special dispensation from God, the United Nations, or your local knitting club which says that "it's okay for Lukeno94 to act like an asshole on Wikipedia but no one is ever allowed to criticize him for it, because gosh darn it that's "harassment""? No? Then quit it with the double standards and take back the false accusations you've been making.

existence of off-Wiki attack pages, and Encyclopedia Dramatica has been used in this case before (irrelevant of which side; NO. It is NOT "irrelevant which side". It is central here. Attack pages and ED have been used to attack and harass *myself*, and Piotrus, and others (in some other vile ways which you are not even aware of). *I* have NEVER used attack pages and/or ED to attack or harass anyone. The fact that you seem to think that because someone else used these venues to attack me somehow proves that I would do the same... honestly I don't know how to describe that except "so stupid it hurts" (not to mention bad faithed but nm). Blame the victim much?

And you can throw the words "cabal" and "clique" all you want but that's pretty much in the same vein as you accusing me of planning to make attack pages on people. I don't have a clique or a cabal, sorry to disappoint. Again, you're full of shit and you're lying.

Finally, I didn't see any warnings from DangerousPanda (and jeez christ, can that guy PLEASE stick to a single account, legitimate alternative accounts or not, it's annoying and confusing as hell, and... unbecoming of an administrator) but I'll be damned if I let you sit here and lie about me, accuse me of some vile stuff without any proof, without any evidence, without any decency. You know, given the circumstances I've been quite restrained in telling you what I think of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a warning at the bottom of this thread. And if you think that calling someone mentally unstable is not harassment, then quite frankly, you aren't worth talking to. I'd say "you don't belong here", but the EEML case proved that years ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the poor anonymous IP who posted an attack on a Wikipedia editor is feeling very harassed. Will have to get counseling. In my opinion the level of obsessiveness with Piotrus and others, displayed by that person (more likely persons) definitely qualifies them for my description. Digging out obscure innane stuff from 2006? Yup. And buddy, I was here long before you showed up, and I promise you, I'll be here long after you're gone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether the IP's diffs were correct or not is of no relevance whatsoever. The post was abusive not because it was wrong, but because it was made from a position of illegitimate socking. No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name. There is never an excuse for hiding your face in this way, even if you are otherwise an editor in good standing. That alone is compelling grounds for treating the IP as abusive, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Show me the proof that the IP was originally a user with an account, and hasn't always edited as an IP? That's right, there isn't one. You're just making up policies to justify your supervote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. You can't seriously think that this is just some random passer-by, who just happened to get curious about Piotrus and then spent what must have been days digging through six or more years of wiki-history to compile evidence against him? Obviously this is somebody who has been closely following Piotrus and his disputes for years, and had intimate knowledge of the internals of these disputes. Now, show me one long-term IP editor who used to be active in that area and fits that profile. No, of course you don't know such an IP editor, there is no indication at all that this is the case, and I, having followed these disputes from some distance for much of this time, can confidently say there never was one. Sock judgments on Wikipedia don't rely on judicial methods of "proof", see WP:DUCK. If an anon IP or new account pops up out of nowhere and immediately jumps into an old dispute, revealing intimate knowledge of long-past situations, but doesn't volunteer any information about how he came to be so knowledgeable about it, then they are, always, without exception, a sock. Period. And then, every time, some boring old busybody on ANI comes by and starts obsessing about AGF and "show me some proof he's not a legitimate IP editor", bla bla. Yes, he might be a little green Martian too, show me proof that he's not, what the hell. I'm sick and tired of this boring old ritual. Stop insulting our intelligence by playing this stupid game. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @FP. You have summarised WP:SOCK policy in a very simple way. The problem I have is that the policy as documented does not support your ruling that "No matter whether the original editor behind that IP is formally banned or not, or whether they just opted to "not use their account" for some reason you consider understandable – it doesn't matter a bit. Our rules are very clear on this: if you want to involve yourself in a matter of wiki-politics, you do it openly and under your legitimate account name." It would be great if the policy actually stated that, but it doesn't. Which heading of WP:ILLEGIT should I be looking at? Leaky Caldron 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's plain as day: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". Obviuosly that also goes for editors choosing to edit logged-out without disclosing their link to their prior edit history (whether that prior edit history be itself through IPs or an account). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

But editing the Talk Page at RfA is not included in the list of prohibited areas. It expressly lists voting at RfA, not adding to the RfA TP. Leaky Caldron 12:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't expect anybody would sink so low into wikilawyering. With this, you have finally lost any claim to being taken seriously here. Learn this: on Wikipedia, we read policy texts for their intent, not for their letter. Now go away, I'm no longer interested in having any discussion with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's completely uncalled for. I didn't write the policy. I take it as read that those who did included everything they did (and didn't) for a good reason. Leaky Caldron 13:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking on to this for some while, and was in doubt whether I should say something here, but now here it goes: First: Further down Razionale quotes policy: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Thus, after Illraute reinstated the text on February 11 at 5.02, the text should have been left on the talk page. There was absolutely no justification to remove it anymore. The text itself is well written, shows evidence and uses no abusive language. To call a statement of fact a "personal attack" is preposterous, and not supported by any policy or guideline. The reader has to make up his mind what to make of it. And Piotrus should take responsibility for his actions, instead of trying to hide that there ever was anything going on. He would have gotten more support if he discussed his past freely instead of having removed it which led to his being swamped with opposes. Second: To protect a preferred version, after removing the content contrary to policy/guidelines, is conduct unbecoming an admin, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I admonish you to avoid such actions in the future. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1. A statement can be abusive even if it doesn't use "abusive language". Outing, lying, etc. 2. Piotrus did take responsibility and didn't try to hide anything. He mentioned the episode in his candidate statement both in this RfA and in the previous one. 3. He didn't "remove it". I did. Because it deserved to be removed. He didn't try "having it removed". 4. Future Perfect acted correctly, both in terms of Wikipedia policy and basic decency. Is it really too much to ask that people actually bother thinking and checking before they come here and talk nonsense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kraxler: you are mistaken about the "reinstating" policy. When it comes to talkpage postings, there's more to "reinstating" a sock's posting under the socking policy than simply to revert it in. You need to revert it in with the explicit aim of making it fully your own, taking full responsibility for it – that usually involves at least an explicit note in an edit summary, more commonly a note on the page itself, telling readers that you fully endorse every word of the posting and wish it to be read as if you yourself had written it all along. Once you do that, you will be held responsible for everything that's in it – if there's a personal attack in it, you will be the one who made the personal attack; if there are negative judgments, allegations or accusations in it, you will be judged as having made them. None of the editors who reinstated the anon's posting indicated that they wished to take this responsibility. And since none of them have so far claimed they in fact investigated and checked every single claim in the screed and verified every single diff, I dare say that it would have been hugely irresponsible for any of them to have done so. Making negative accusations about people at RfA is not a thing to be done lightly, so if even a single diff in that screed had turned out to be false or a single judgment to have been questionable, that would have seriously backfired on the person who reinstated it. But as it is, the way I read the edit history, nobody did do this, so it is still the IP's posting, and the IP's alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this turning into a huge drama-fest? Do people think that there is going to be another 65 support votes, which with no more opposes takes the RFA to ~70% support, without that information on the talk page? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Why the love of drama? Why the need to restore this attack on Piotrus by some cowardly anon IP ? Unless... the purpose really *is* just to humiliate him. Plenty of folks around Wikipedia, and especially RfA, who enjoy that kind of thing way too much. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose to TParis's unannounced and authoritarian offer of brushing-under-the-carpet. It aims at suppressing over 200 evidence diffs without any consideration. While the only claim remains that it could be from a banned user, which is possible but a speculation, this is long irrelevant because even if it were, then other users have already taken over the responsibility for the material [33] ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content."). Yes, taking over material exists, but "taking over protection"s is bizarre and some way to undermine the objection to super-voting. Since the report contains pieces still actionable, anyone trying to suppress it must be held to blame for it. Piotrus is in my opinion an impressive and productive Wikipedian, but his RFA was already lost before the report. The only result from brushing it under the carpet is that Pioturs could and would continue the totally unacceptable tag-teaming, EEML business, misrepresentations, misleading of voters, disregard for checking copyright and so forth. Any reference to the evidence would be shredded as something courtesy blanked.--Razionale (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's necessary for FPaS (whom I don't know from Adam), when he's back online, to explain how he didn't breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge his breach. My concern obviously is that if he breached WP:INVOLVED but thinks the rule doesn't apply to him or doesn't see that he breached the rule, or doesn't think he has to address this reasonable request, then we have a character or competency problem with this editor.

To be very clear: I'm not asking FPaS to explain why his preferred version was superior - that's something about which reasonable people may disagree - but to explain how he did not breach WP:INVOLVED, or acknowledge it was a breach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI for anyone who might not know, the RfA has now been closed (although that doesn't necessarily make the discussion moot). Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Should MONGO be blocked for personal attacks? They've made their third "chickenshit" remark, despite knowing full well it is inappropriate. I agree with Anthony that FPaS needs to explain themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, "chickenshit" is precisely the word that is appropriate here. There's a couple of words that come to mind in relation to your little agitation games here but I'll refrain. FPaS is one of the few people here who has shown some decency, and honestly, you and a few others... are behaving like the stereotype of an immature adolescent internet bully who revels in humiliating others for the fun of it and gets their kicks by exercising petty power in petty fashion. Oh, wait a minute, you don't even have any power, you're not even an admin, just another drama board groupie wasting people's time. Find better places to hang out than ANI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• So you trying to censor and bully people who point out how much you've gamed the system over the years is somehow appropriate? Note that two editors have 100% supported my assessment of the edit war situation, and two editors whom I've barely interacted with anywhere, so I'm clearly not "an immature adolescent internet bully" if I'm talking sense, am I? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeeeeaaahhhh, I'm trying to "bully" an anonymous IP coward with obvious mental problems, who posted a long super creepy, obsessive attack hit piece about another editor. Poor anonymous IP editor. Bullied by the evil Volunteer Marek. Good thing Wikipedia has valiant defenders of the truth, always ready to scream "notcencorsed!" who are here to speak up for the rights of anonymous IP editors to harass and humiliate others. What would this place be like without you? Oh my god! I just realized what it would be like. It would be a place where anonymous IP editors might not be so inclined to harass and humiliate people who have the courage to edit under their own names. The horror!

Yes, buddy, that's on you too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow Marek, that's beneath you. 8-( Now Luke and I have had enough run ins before that no-one is likely to characterise me as simply leaping to the defence of some wiki-friend here, but your comments on him are uncalled for, unhelpful and awfully close to NPA. Especially the implication of "No non-admins at ANI". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm about 1/4" off of clicking the "block" button for VM's personal attacks on the IP right here in ANI. "Obvious mental problems"? Seriously? You consider that even remotely appropriate? I'm still not sure why I'm delaying the inevitable DP 11:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose close

This is descending into a shitfest. The RfA is closed. The point is moot. And I'm sure the IP is pleased. There are community issues, maybe, but the village pump is the best place to discuss them IMO. They are not going to be resolved here.

Any objections to closing this thread to prevent further misery and rancor? --Tóraí (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am formulating a follow-up question for FP. Please leave it a while. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Tóraí (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because the RFA is closed, does not eradicate the surrounding behavioural issues DP 11:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't stop people from perpetually arguing over trivial facts, either. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Did User:Future Perfect at Sunrise break WP:INVOLVED? A simple question I've asked a couple of times above. Here he explains,

"I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect."

This strikes me as the very model of involved: engaging in an edit-war with numerous others in good standing and locking the page in his preferred version. Although in this instance the behaviour was inconsequential - the RfA outcome was inevitable at that point - I'm worried he doesn't grasp the meaning of "involved" and may be doing this kind of thing in other situations. Anyway, it is a reasonable question from an involved editor in good standing (it was my edit he reverted before locking the page in his preferred version) and I think he should address it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he needs to address his blatant abuse of another editor (me) and whether their understanding of the WP:ILLEGIT policy, which they have quoted, is actually defensible. Leaky Caldron 13:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look into the entire RfA, but a glaringly tendentious 58K rant from a previously unknown anonymous source is a clear sign of a lack of good faith, and the intervening admins were perfectly within the limits of discretion by stopping its repetitive insertion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not children. If it's "glaringly tendentious", then we can be expected to judge it on its merits. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

While the content is overly long by Wikipedia standards, it's reasonably well written, formatted well, and extensively supported by diffs. It is WMF policy that IPs can edit except for very narrow exceptions and although Rfa voting is one of those exceptions, Rfa talk is not. While the reversion may have fallen within "the limits of discretion" it has not exemplified wisdom, as the resulting ruckus (i.e. this thread) has only Streisanded it into getting a much larger audience that it likely would have otherwise. NE Ent 14:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that assessment would be spot-on if the IP user in question were a genuinely new contributor, but this was obviously the input of someone familiar with the subject and the surrounding issues. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and honestly, common sense and a bit of background knowledge here strongly suggests that we're not talking about a "someone" here but rather "someones". With an "s" at the end. That post was a group effort. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly because we're not children, none of us should expect that people will be tolerant of everyone's time being wasted on bad-faith rants. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course the assessment is spot on. The post was clearly a political act by the author(s) to increase the probability of the Rfa failing. That goal has been achieved -- whether it would have been without the IP post is of course unknown and unknowable. Nonetheless a mature adult assessment of the potential effects of contribution removal should include making predictions as the to probable outcomes. Will the reversion stick, or will other editors reinstate it? Will more or less attention to the post be made by reverting it or ignoring it? In this case with hindsight it should be obvious removing the statement attracted far more attention to it than ignoring it. NE Ent 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment on proposal to close: While the RfA itself is closed, would I be correct in stating that protection of the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) appears to now be overdue for removal? If so, when unprotected we could yet see further edits/discussion there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Trevj, the talk page is already unprotected. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly if tangentially, I'm almost unsatisfied enough with FPaS' rationale that I'm tempted to take the subpage to DRV, except that it would probably be just as symbolic as the deletion. If someone else chooses to do so, I'll comment there. I don't see a compelling case that the IP was in any fashion involved in the EEML scandal, but I admit to not having closely followed the case even at the time. Pakaran 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• We don't actually need the subpage, as it duplicates material still available for viewing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3; sample diff. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thus my usage of the word symbolic. I guess I'm curious why, if FPaS is in the possession of evidence against the logged-out user, he has not taken that evidence to an SPI case or to arbcom. I suppose it's possible he has done the latter, and they're in the process of dealing with it. In any case, I don't think further discussion here is going to improve anything substantially. Pakaran 15:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Huh? What non-obvious "evidence" would I be "in possession of"? I told everybody exactly (and more than once) what I think and what I know about that IP. I have exactly as much evidence about it as everybody else has, combined with a dose of common sense and experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Just a general comment about the term shitfest...is that a festival of shit...a shit flinging event...a shit eating competition...I have yet to find a suitable ans authoritive definition.--MONGO 15:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The edit's content isn't even relevant or necessary to be included. If anything, it should either be at a subpage, at the bottom of the page, or not there at all, the latter of which is my preferred option. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here's my question: If the IP that posted the disputed content is so clearly a "banned *** sock", why wasn't the IP blocked? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably for no more sinister reason than that they had only made a single edit and by the time the edit-war drew everybody's attention the IP had been silent for about a day, making retroactive blocking pretty useless? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• If it's a banned *** sock, shouldn't it be blocked on sight, regardless of that? Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Only if it was a registered account. IPs happen to change between different users and even static ones may not always represent one and the same user. So, while I don't have any opinion about anything else in this thread, blocking a stale IP for block/ban evasion would've been pretty futile. De728631 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• What evidence is there that this even was a sock of a banned user? That's a pretty serious allegation and Future Perfect is awfully quick to throw it around without the slightest evidence. Yesterday they blocked Bort Nort within 3 minutes of their first noticeable edit and removed communication access too. That's too quick for any sort of CU intervention. Future Perfect is far too quick and far too involved to be acting with such haste in this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Um.... he probably blocked Bort Nort because Bort Nort went around to various people's talk pages telling them that he was a sock of a banned user. Really, not that hard to figure out. Can this thread get any more absurd? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Did User:Future Perfect at Sunrise break WP:INVOLVED?

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

---

User:NE Ent closed this thread, and invited others who disagree with its closure to reopen. I think I agree with ending most of that discussion now, but would like to hear from FPaS on this point.

Here he explains,

"I had resolved to protect that page in the state I found it (without the comment), as a perfectly uninvolved administrator, but then saw that somebody had beat me to it by a matter of seconds, reinstating the comment while I was preparing to hit the protect button. I think it is legitimate in such a situation to revert to the state I initially meant to protect."

This strikes me as the very model of involved: engaging in an edit-war with numerous others in good standing and locking the page in his preferred version. Although in this instance the behaviour was inconsequential - the RfA outcome was inevitable at that point - I'm worried he doesn't grasp the meaning of "involved" and may be doing this kind of thing in other situations. Anyway, it is a reasonable question from an involved editor in good standing (it was my edit he reverted before locking the page in his preferred version) and I think he should address it.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• By reverting to his preferred version before protecting, given that this is categorically not a clear-cut case (the number of experienced editors on either side of the edit war and subsequent debate shows that), I would most definitely say that this is a WP:INVOLVED violation. I don't hold out much hope of it being addressed though, given the prior discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think he was involved (WP:INVOLVED). I don't believe he sought to protect the page merely to prevent edit warring (i.e. to protect in at an arbitrary revision). I believe he sought to remove the content and prevent its re-insertion. Doing so is perfectly valid in some circumstances. And I believe he did so in good faith.

Ultimately, nothing worthwhile came from its removal. And nothing was lost by its removal either. My feel is that creating a fuss over it created more impact from the statement than the IP could ever have achieved alone. If the IP was a ***, I'm certain they are grateful to those of you who took the bait (see WP:DENY). If the IP wasn't a ***, I'm sure they are still grateful that their post was brought to so many people's attention.

I don't agree with Future Perfect's call on some elements of the matter (neither do other admins). But I don't think it's necessary for us all to agree all of the time. And there's more to be lost, I believe, in raking over the coals now, than if we just moved on, cooler and wiser for all these goings-on. --Tóraí (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beats me how all you Admins. stick together to defend one another. I mean, you read his very personal, direct attack on me for simply raising a query about policy (I wasn't the only one) and not a word said. If I had said that to another editor, or especially an Admin., I would be warned or blocked. It's not about growing a thick skin, it's about knowing when to not step over the mark to the point of publicly denigrating a fellow editor. As Admins. you should be dishing out warnings, not sitting on your hands. Leaky Caldron 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• People (and non-admins at that) were saying worse things in that discussion than he was, and didn't get warned either, so it's hardly surprising. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Let's just dispense with the opening section of WP:ADMINACCT, eh? The bit that says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.". Leaky Caldron 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't condoning his comments, not even close Leaky, and I'm disappointed you thought I was. The fact is though, only one user was warned out of all of those who made personal attacks and were acting in civilly during that discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is little point to even asking the question here at ANI as the usual deafening silence comes down whenever an admin is questioned. Really it's ArbCom or nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is nothing to do with a cabal of admins imposing silence—it's the fact that FPoA's assessment (see comment at "19:39, 11 February 2014" above) is so obviously correct. While anyone can edit applies, it is necessary to employ WP:DENY rigorously—the alternative would leave talk pages littered with beautifully crafted attacks on editors, posted by throw-away accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:DENY is for vandalism, it's not a convenient "catch-all" for when you don't like the content but "you're pretty sure they're a sockpuppet...or whatever else allows me to remove the comment". I really hope you just didn't read WP:DENY, and that you don't think that the comment is now vandalism? - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Essays like WP:DENY are not necessarily updated to reflect standard procedure. Rather than debate that point, how about responding to the issue I mentioned, namely that the alternative (to applying DENY) would leave talk pages littered with beautifully crafted attacks on editors, posted by throw-away accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DENY is an essay. That's all it is. Some people need to stop referencing it as if it is a solid policy that justifies these actions - when there are no justifications for protecting your preferred version of a page that is disputed by various editors in good standing (this is not one IP editwarring against a bunch of experienced editors, don't forget) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• The bit about "not necessarily updated to reflect standard procedure" is flat-out wrong. Citing things based on what we think they should probably say isn't how Wikipedia works. If you think WP:DENY needs to be changed, propose that on that talk page. As far as the "how about responding" bit, the "attack" was backed up by diffs, so WP:NPA doesn't apply. It wasn't vandalism, so WP:DENY doesn't apply. It wasn't a confirmed sockpuppet, so removing it wasn't valid on the grounds that it was a sockpuppet. The two theories given as justification are that the IP was either someone editing while logged out, or a blocked/banned editor. Either way, the concern is that the edits weren't done in a legit way...so the response is to remove them in a way that isn't legit? That's hypocritical, at best. If it's thought that the IP was a sockpuppet open an SPI rather than leaving hypocritical "beautifully crafted attacks on editors" here at AN/I. Editors have been blocked before for repeatedly using "sockpuppet" to describe someone when no evidence was given. The IP's comments were backed up by diffs, your attacks are not; are you suggesting I should remove your comments per WP:DENY? - Aoidh (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP's comment was not vandalism. Nor was it a personal attack: discussion of a user's conduct or history, with diffs, is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion. The IP may have a valid reason for not identifying their account, if they have one - I don't know the depth of acrimony in the EEML area, but if it is deep then an editor whose account name is their real name may have very good grounds for not identifying themselves when criticising one of the main players in that dispute.

Be all that as it may. My question is not whether the comment should have been deleted. Obviously, reasonable and uninvolved, non-partisan people disagree on that. My question is whether an editor who holds and strongly proclaims one of the opposing views and who is a party to the edit war should protect the page in his preferred version.

I would appreciate it if further comments addressed this question, the title of the sub-thread. If you would like to re-argue whether the content should have been removed, or whether someone has been rude to someone, or any other aspect of this incident please take up NE Ent's offer and re-open the main thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If an editor with an account were to make a subpage with that content, it would be deleted as a WP:POLEMIC violation. In the heat of an RfA, people can get excited about protecting liberty and free speech, but no page on Wikipedia is available for settling grudges, and it has obviously been lovingly prepared by an adversary from some previous dispute—an adversary who is unable or unwilling to use their account. The post is still available in the history if anyone cares. What possible benefit to the encyclopedia may ensue from pursuing this matter?

Re the title: no, FPaS did not violate INVOLVED. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:POLEMIC wouldn't apply because it's not a user page (and that's ignoring the fact that the IP didn't create it as a subpage, but commented on the talk page, where appropriate). If you mean to say that if they had made that comment on their user page that it would have been deleted, probably. However, your comments here would also be deleted, but the difference is that their comments were backed by diffs, whereas yours are not. Are you truly suggesting that it doesn't benefit Wikipedia to ensure that administrators are using their tools correctly? - Aoidh (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED concludes by noting "...it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards", and the revert was part of a sequence of edits by various users, typical concerning contentious material. The edit summary "rv, obviously a statement by some banned *** sock" may be seen as expressing an opinion (and hence involvement) on the validity of the content, which the page history showed no agreement on regarding inclusion of the comments.

I share the view that "editing immediately before protecting", combined with deletion of the subpage doesn't seem to be an obvious run-of-the-mill course of administrative action. The combination of edits by the admin concerned could be seen as not being impartial, although undertaken in good faith to prevent further warring. IMHO there were enough eyes on the page to undertake, say, just one of these actions... and the ANI discussion was already underway. By way of contrast, the subsequent protection by TParis was not undertaken in conjunction with other edits which could imply involvement.

Were I to be in a position where involvement in an area were questioned by others, with respect to associated administrative action(s), I'd like to think that I'd be inclined to revert the action(s) and await the consensus view (particularly after ample opportunity for further reflection). Despite potentially valid convictions regarding the validity of the content (and its origins and intentions), I think that the combination of edits was ill-judged in this case, because "best practice" was not followed. In short, yes, I think that there was an appearance of being involved, and therefore that the combined edits are open to question. These comments have no bearing on my personal opinion of the particular admin, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling generated. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Close - again

No one is moving their position here and the Admin. certainly is not going to accept any error for the involved close or for their clear breach of WP:ADMINACCT. It is clear what a majority of contributor's believe and another venue will be required to get an impartial determination of the actions & behaviour that is under discussion. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: before this is closed can you respond to Trevj's comments about appearance of involvement, taking sides in an edit war, etc. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Close. This pursuit is ridiculous...should an effort be made to take this to arbcom, I expect that even if they did take the case, they would find no fault here and in fact, might find the badgering that some are subjecting Future Perfect at Sunrise to to be sanctionable...so think hard about opening a case on this matter as all parties will be under scrutiny.--MONGO 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• This is utterly pointless, I suggest either go to ArbCom or forget all this and just move on!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Mikemikev at Race and genetics article

Banned user Mikemikev is edit-warring at the race and genetics article using multiple Korean IPs, all static IPs. The Korean IPs and behavior, especially some of the edit summaries, make these WP:DUCK blocks. The IPs used up to this point are: 125.141.105.62 (talk · contribs), 218.232.82.76 (talk · contribs), and 118.219.86.87 (talk · contribs). Page should be semi-protected as well for a longer period, previous was for three days.--The ***'s Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by 81.106.127.14

Despite an urgent request to refrain from from personal attacks, 81.106.127.14 has again directed a personal attacks at me. His latest is here:

"English is your second language and having tidied up many of your edits it is clear that you struggle with grammar, idiom and syntax." This is an ad hominim attack, instead of constructive discussion.

Previously he attacked me here, for which he was reported and blocked.

I suspect 81~14 to have used various accounts previously:

• 81.106.127.14 (10 nov 2011 - present)
  • One block
• 81.107.150.246 (11 nov 2010 - 2 oct 2011)
• Langdell (4 april 2010 (one edit))
• 81.106.115.153 (25 nov 2009 - 6 july 2010)
• 81.109.10.218 (4 feb 2009 - 23 nov 2009)
• 81.109.11.33 (2 july 2008 user-account Langdell and IP - 1 jan 2009)
• Langdell (7 aug 2005 - 21 oct 2008 / 4 april 2010 (one edit))
  • Two blocks

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You "warned" someone for personal attacks for calling you "Mr Jonathan"?? Whuh? Your primary diff at the top of this report most certainly does not show a personal attack. A slight sprinkling of 3 year old diffs certainly is not proving anything that you're claiming ES&L 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a longer history preceding this; my tolerance of his behaviour has become quite limited. See:

• User talk:Joshua Jonathan: diff warning
• User talk:History2007: diff (including hint of long-term editing)
• User talk:Tao2911: diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there some point where you will actually link to a personal attack? I'm not even seeing minor incivility in your links (granted, I've gotten tired of clicking them with a mere hopes of finding something to act upon, yet seeing nothing DP 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I admit that the one at the top seems trivial (especially scrolling through the rest of this page ). It is the repeated pattern which I'm tired of. There is a long-standing pattern of WP:OR by this editor; when he's being questioned about it, he starts with these denigrating remarks. It's the combination which I'm getting fed-up with: again and again checking his sources, explaining what's wrong, and then denigrating remarks, which are not directed at the topic but at my person. Anyway, if you think that there is no personal attack, then let's just close the case. Any good advice on how to respond when I'm getting irritated by this? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've started scrutinizing the sources again... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

New editor on a tag-bombing spree

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

---

Resolved: Blocked indef. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Surface wall (talk · contribs) registered a new account yesterday and today has been adding {{refimprove}} tags indiscriminately at a rate of 4 to 5 per minute. The articles seem to be chosen randomly, but in the vast majority of cases the tag is wildly inappropriate e.g. Borat (a Featured article), Becoming the Villainess, Philip N. Diehl, and where it is appropriate it seems to be purely by chance. He continues after both another editor and I have spoken to him on his talk page (to no response) and another editor has issued a level 4 disruption warning. There are now hundreds of articles tagged. Can someone please talk some sense to him and is there a way these edits can be rolled-back en masse? Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Editor has been reported to AIV, stopped editing for the moment, and his edits have all been reverted. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. No responses to talk page queries and almost bot-like editing doesn't jive well with me. m.o.p 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User a clear vandal

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

---

I've stumbled across a user, Irate158, who is a clear vandal. They have created pages of non-existent entities, linked them with real companies and done a whole slew of cross-linking and really just hosed up a slew of articles. I don't have any one incident to report, their whole history is full of vandalism. They've been warned multiple times, which they've apparently just ignored (their Talk page). I'm a very experienced editor, but generally don't go to the lengths of requesting blocking editors, but I don't see anyone else acting on this one, malicious editor. I suggest blocking them and having a bot go through and undo all their edits (if one exists). — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting

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

---

At the advice of policy wonks Johnuniq, Bbb23, and DangerousPanda I am bringing this matter to ANI rather than to AN. The case, involving Skyring (goes by Pete) and HiLo48, is this.

On 4 November 2013 I closed a lengthy ANI discussion and logged an interaction ban between the two. The particulars of that discussion are on the record: it was painful, and there was considerable doubt about Skyring's editing and ways of interacting. At any rate, the ban was logged. Since then each has complained to me about the other: I warned Skyring once and then blocked him briefly, a month later I think; recently I warned HiLo but stopped short of blocking him.

But now disruption has risen again, with a thread started by Pete on Talk:Soccer in Australia. HiLo argues, in a nutshell, that Pete has followed him there, and with some reason. Pete has only one single edit in the article, a revert of HiLo (from August 2013, before the IBAN), against 40 by HiLo, going back to 2010. The talk page is similar: 24 edits for Pete, going back to August 2013, and 375 by HiLo.

So, the question is, is the section Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#About_time_we_talked_about_the_name_again, started by Pete on 1 February, to be taken as indicative of him following (hounding) HiLo to one of the latter's favorite haunts, and thus perhaps of baiting him? It should be noted that the section discusses the whole soccer/football naming controversy, in which HiLo has been outspoken and on the record. In other words, one could expect that this important matter would attract HiLo's attention, and an IBAN preventing him from participating in that thread takes one of the longstanding voices in that debate out of the equation.

Let it be noted, but I need to wrap this up, that NE Ent left Pete a note on his talk page that supports the notion that this was inappropriate on Pete's part (correct me if I'm wrong, Ent), and that Johnuniq and DangerousPanda subscribe to that idea too. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Drmies. Just let me clarify there. My interest is not in the sport, so I'm not active on the article page. Rather, the question of the terminology is what arouses my interest, and that is confined to the talk page. In fact it is pretty much what the talk page is all about, and I urge editors to take a look for themselves. It is painful.

My contributions there have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote taken. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Pete's response here is effectively the same as it was on Drmies's talk page. I find it disingenuous at best. I think there are several of us in agreement that what Pete did was "wrong". The harder question is what's the remedy, and we may find significantly more disagreement there. Not being a policy wonk (no matter what Drmies says), my view is that Pete violated the WP:IBAN, either its spirit or by implication. If HiLo had responded directly, he would obviously have violated the ban, and I think Pete was goading him to do so. (BTW, I have no history with either editor that I'm aware of, or at least remember.) It reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode (everything does) in which Lucy bets with Ricky that he can't lose his temper for 24 hours and he bets that she can't not buy a new hat for the same period of time. During the next 24 hours, Lucy keeps doing things to try to make Ricky lose his temper. He comes close but always pulls back. I heartily recommend this episode for anyone interested in implied IBAN violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Skyring's contributions on Soccer in Australia are within the allowed activities of WP:IBAN. However, given their lack of prior interest in the subject, as documented by Drmies with the cool tool, the strong opinions at the ANI discussion which lead to ban, the vast size of both Australia and English Wikipedia, in which to engage in questions of terminology, the number of editors already having a robust discussion of the issue, I would say it's of minimal benefit to the Encyclopedia to focus their efforts there; given the potential for conflict between two editors who just don't get along I requested they strike their comments and disengage. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to take the trouble, they might review Special:Contributions/Skyring and see if there is a net benefit from Skyring/Pete's presence—I suspect the answer is no. At a minimum, I support an indefinite topic ban for Skyring regarding soccer/football and its naming controversy. At Drmies' archived talk, I noted (at 1 January 2014) that, checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that:
  • HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014. In the December edits, 19 mention "soccer" in the edit summary.
  • Skyring made 3 edits in January 2014, 3 edits in December 2013, and 5 edits in August 2013, and no other.

I have seen enough of Skyring's style to know that his recent interest in the topic of soccer is almost certainly gaming the system to irritate his opponent—HiLo48 always participates in a new outbreak of the soccer/football battle, but he cannot participate at the moment because the section was started by Skyring. Of course no one can prove that this is an intentional tactic by Skyring, however proof is not needed since all the community wants is drama reduction and productive editing, and anything that might be baiting should be stopped. The great soccer/football debate will continue without Skyring's participation. Skyring will use any opportunity as seen at User talk:Drmies#Sorry to bother you again where Skyring just happened to have noticed that his opponent has commented at User talk:Spinrad (which has a total of five edits in its history)—in the comment, HiLo48 has technically breached the IBAN, but it is such a harmless explanation that only someone going for blood would seize on it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is well aware that we monitor each other's contributions. As for "going for blood", in the section linked, I requested a gentle reminder and that no further action be taken. I don't want to see anyone in trouble, but I do want the personal attacks to cease. That's why I supported the IBAN in the first place. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

checking the entire history of Talk:Soccer in Australia showed that: HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009, with 111 in December 2013 and none in 2014.

Well, It's interesting that you should bring those contributions up. For starters, you say "none in 2014", but I count 76. Perhaps I could ask an independent editor to check my figures?

Looking at some of those contributions makes for interesting reading, coming from someone who claims they don't make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo pointed out, on his talk page and here, that no evidence is given of personal attacks, and I think it's important to point out, for the new readers, that I see no personal attacks by HiLo on Pete since the IBAN. (That's the issue--not whether HiLo has been rude or whatever to other editors--that's unproven, you cannot make that case under your IBAN, and it's not of interest to this discussion--note after edit conflict and Pete's contribution.) It's not even really relevant here, nor is it relevant how exciting or important discussions on the Australian soccer nomenclature are. Indeed, I'm beginning to think that the lengthy commentary by Pete on this matter is intended to draw attention away from the actual matter at heart: whether we should see their interest in the Soccer in Australia article and its talk page as a kind of hounding/baiting. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of personal attacks directed against me since the IBAN began. Specifically on HiLo's talk page. I've drawn your attention to them, Drmies, asking that they stop, but you are a busy person, and doubtless have other matters on your mind.

I've commented on the baiting already. Where are the diffs? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are given: edit counts by both of you in the article and the talk page, and your starting that section on the naming issue: first sentence, fourth paragraph of my initial posting. You have left a "What's going on" section on my talk page, the answer to which (if there was a question) is this very ANI report. You also posted "Sorry to bother you again", where you pointed to this diff, and I responded, as did Johnuniq in this very thread. You pointed at a possible IBAN violation (archived, I believe, on my talk page) and I warned HiLo. I do have other matters on my mind, one of which is that I'm getting kind of tired of this thread and responding to your lawyerish comments. And no, I do not believe you have responded in any kind of substance to the baiting issue. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was made before: There is nothing in an IBAN preventing either of us from participating in discussion. The key point is to avoid the other party. Editors do not "own" articles or talk pages, regardless of how many edits they make or who was first. In this case, both of us were active on the relevant talk page before the ban was applied and we have since confined ourselves to different threads. Call it lawyerish, if you must, but that's just a commonsense reading of the relevant policy: "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way."

So where, precisely, is the hounding? Can you - or anyone else - provide a diff that is one party baiting the other?

If it is your contention that HiLo48 "owns" the article and its talk page, then I find that very problematic indeed. So do you, apparently. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not contend that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that you posted on that talk page, seeking to overturn consensus on a topic where you had earlier sought confrontation with HiLo (your one edit to the article), in order to pull them out and violate the IBAN--yes, to bait them. And you're doing the same thing here: you know that HiLo is itching to rebut, and it's a good thing they're keeping their cool. You know, in this battle between the two of you I used to think there was equal blame, more or less. I don't think that anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it is quite clear that there is no consensus to be overturned - it is one long argument. My posts there are aimed at finding and presenting reliable sources showing that the name of the sport has changed. As I noted earlier - did you even read it? - there is no point to baiting the other party in an IBAN and then running to AN/I claiming a breach. That sort of tactic is easily seen through and would boomerang if either party tried it. You raised this AN/I discussion, requiring me to come here to rebut the charges made against me. I have stated my case, I have been honest, I have pointed to the relevant policy and asked for evidence. And nothing concrete is forthcoming but irritation. Which I share.

This comes down to a simple point. If the other party "owns" the article and talk page, then say so, and I will refrain from posting there any more. If not, then I am perfectly within my rights to take part in discussion on a topic which attracts me through my interest in language and popular culture. The mere act of posting is not baiting. I didn't mention the other party in any way, I didn't respond, I didn't interact at all. Go me. Go both of us.

And finally, yes, I very much prefer that all parties keep their cool. That's what this whole thing is about. That's exactly what I want. HiLo48 deserves praise for keeping calm and biting his tongue. May he ever continue to do so, and may we all of us continue to be civil in our dealings with one another. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to comment here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WP:BANEX says yes, and Pete already has. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. What personal attacks? That unsupported negative statement is the typical sort of nonsense that gets posted at AN/I without consequence. I have not communicated with Pete/Skyring since the ban began. I have made absolutely minimal comments about him. That disruptive statement alone is so unhelpful it should demand a serious consequence, quite apart from the other problem being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I may be someone who is regularly opposed to HiLo's way of dealing with things, but even when I'm on the opposite side, this is one of the clearest gaming of the system attempts that I've seen in a while - as Johnuniq notes, it is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional. Skyring has contributed a miniscule amount to any association football/soccer article, whereas HiLo is far more regularly involved. Skyring being topic banned from anything to do with association football/soccer would be entirely appropriate. And yes, HiLo, you can comment here, since this is an ANI discussion about the interaction ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48 has a perfect right to present his side of the story in his own words and he shall have no interference from me.

  To those whose mind is made up, there is no point arguing. Think what you will. For my part, I am perfectly within my rights under the limitations of an IBAN to participate in Wikipedia discussions on those topics which interest me, and while football does not, popular culture and language has been my fascination from university, and the question of what a particular sport might be called is an important and intriguing one. The name is changing within Australia and it affects not just the one article, but many others. If an Australian player moves to the European leagues during the offseason, does he play Soccer or Association Football and how do we describe him?

  It is not in my heart to goad or bait HiLo48 into breaking the ban and then pounce around and crow over it. Anyone who knows how Wikipedia works also knows exactly how that would play out here. It would be a pointless exercise and it would boomerang badly. If it happens, then it can be dealt with, but it also seems pointless to discuss something that hasn't happened, especially when other editors are projecting thoughts and motivations into my mind that do not, in fact, exist. "It is hard to prove that this is intentional, but it is still obviously intentional," one editor claims. Well, it's not. I know what's in my mind, and it is not that.

  I have looked carefully at the restrictions and exemptions of an IBAN and I see nothing there to prevent me from continuing my ongoing participation. Looking at the discussion page and archives for that topic, likewise. In fact it seems to me to be a good deal less restrictive than recent interpretations and if it is going to be enforced in a different manner to the words of the policy, then perhaps it is time to reword the policy.

  If anyone thinks that there is any baiting or goading going on, then let them put forward diffs. I'm prepared to stand by my statements. All I ask is that policy be followed, evidence presented, and that fairness prevail. For all parties. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  Perfect! You've got a convincing air of innocence gently blended with the wikilawyer's prove it! However, this is Wikipedia where the purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to endlessly debate whether something looking like a turd really is a turd. Is there any reason to imagine that Skyring/Pete's continuing presence in soccer/football issues is required for the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  From my perspective the answer is no. I am quite familiar with the events leading up to this case. In the past I have been extremely critical of HiLo48, but more recently I have come around to seeing matters differently. To be brief, in my view if Skyring/Pete gets off with a soccer/football topic ban he will be getting off easy. Jusdafax 06:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of a little kid who stands just 3 inches beyond where a dog's chain end, and, when reminded they were told not to tease the animal, says but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle! Earlier in the thread [34] Skyring claims HiLo is monitoring their edits (they know that how?) and they "want the attacks to stop." These are violations of the ban. But the important thing isn't the letter of "the law" (WP:NOJUSTICE), but the spirit, and Skyring is clearly violating it. My first thought was along the lines of topic ban from Soccer in Australia, but I'm concerned that's just kicking the can down the road. Perhaps the interaction ban could be amended to include That means stay the heck away from HiLo48, cause the next time it looks like you're edging anywhere close to him we'll skip the three days of discussion and just jump to the point where we block you, for however long it takes you to get the hint. NE Ent 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a comment about process here. I'm looking at several editors using language related to their assessment of my motives and thoughts. The comment above is a good one "I'm reminded of a little kid..." Well, I'm not a little kid, I'm well into my fifties, and I'm not as naiïve as those assessments assume. Baiting the other party in an iban and then running to an admin or ANI with a complaint is not a winning strategy on Wikipedia, as I trust everyone here is aware. I certainly am, because I've now mentioned it three times.

I'm seeing guesses from editors here about my motivations and intentions that project "that little kid" onto me, and that's quite revealing. It's quite incorrect, because it's not in my mind to annoy or harass the other party, and I've asked for diffs to show the baiting. which have not been provided. Standing just beyond the angry dog's reach is a lovely image, but not really applicable here, where both parties are editors of many years experience and presumably able to control themselves. HiLo48, if I may mention him one more time in this thread, is not a barking dog and has in fact demonstrated considerable pride in his ability to NOT react. Those of you with experience will know that this is quite something, but some editors are treating him as if he were on the verge of snapping, and me as if I know this and am goading him that last little bit.

Neither of us are barking dogs or mischievous children. We are people of some maturity and we have both demonstrated restraint over the course of this iban. Sure, there have been some minor breaches, but at least on my part all I've ever sought has been a reminder of the rules rather than any sort of penalty.

So, instead of evidence - a deliberately provocative post, weasel wording, actual baiting or *** or goading - I'm seeing statements based on emotional projection, revolving around little kids and barking dogs. These are actually quite insulting to both parties, and when I compare these imagined motivations against what is in my own mind, they are quite wrong.

Now, having said that, I can see where this is heading, and I'm obviously not going to change hearts and minds here and now, but I will flag my intention to appeal to whatever step is next. Presumably the Arbcom, and in that forum, we will be dealing more with procedure and evidence and less with emotion and gut feelings. There are some questions in my mind about the limits of interaction bans and "spirit of the law", mentioned above. That is intended - and worded - not to be pettifoggingly precise, but to minimise disruption, and I think it has worked very well in this case. Apart from presuming upon the good nature of Drmies with questions and minor complaints, and this current little dramafest, which in my opinion is quite unneccessary and irritating to all concerned apart from those habitual attendees here who cheerfully chuck in their five cents worth of psychiatric assessment. --Pete (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of my comments have been a bit over-excited, but the essential problem remains—there is an IBAN between two users, and one of those users is widely known as supporting a particular outcome in the soccer/football debate, and has over 300 edits to the talk page, starting in October 2009. By comparison, the other editor has had a very minor involvement, but would now like to take a role that happens to oppose the first user. The community is mostly concerned with minimizing disruption and maximizing benefit to the encyclopedia, and following that principle suggests that the best outcome would result from the second user avoiding soccer/football. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So. Where's the disruption that you want to minimise? Not trying to be snarky here, just curious if you can point to any at all. Apart from this unnecessary thread, of course. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this thread and your previous interactions with HiLo48 for some time but have not felt the need to get involved. However, this post just leaves me speechless. In the vernacular the only appropriate response is to say "don't come the raw prawn here, mate". You are well aware of what you have been trying to do and have been called out for it. Pretending to be all innocent is just not going to cut it. I would suggest that admitting your error and giving sincere undertakings not to repeat them is your only hope of avoiding an enforced Wiki-holiday. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly well aware of what I am trying to do. I know what is in my own heart. And you are wrong. Simple as that. But I ask again. Where is the disruption? In your imagination, it seems. Can you point to anything that has actually occurred? Something outside whatever fantasy you are imagining? Seriously now. Where is the evidence?

That's why I mentioned process above. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and evidence. We check our facts. We don't speculate, imagine, fantasise and pretend. Apart from AN/I, it seems. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Would people please specify a preferred outcome because the advice offered above has not been accepted, and this section is getting too long. A couple of us have hinted that more than a topic ban may be helpful—it might be more realistic to apply an indefinite block until it is clear there will be no further exploratory incursions. However let's just examine whether Skyring/Pete should be indefinitely topic banned from all soccer/football topics and discussions, broadly construed. Is the following correct (not including the views of the two editors concerned):

• No recommendation yet: Bbb23, Drmies.
• Support topic ban: Johnuniq, Jusdafax, Lukeno94, NE Ent.

Please make any corrections or updates required, and I hope others join the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and/or block. NE Ent 12:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Skyring from soccer/football, because I find NE Ent's analogy cogent: "but you said I could play anywhere in the yard if I stand outside the dog's circle!"[35] The next time Skyring applies his wikilawyering and timewasting skills to this IBAN ("exploratory incursions"), I support a swift indef block. Bishonen | talk 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Given that the discussion has progressed to this point, I boldly went and created a section for it. So to lay it out:-

1. Skyring, who signs as Pete, is hereby indefinitely topic banned from all articles relating to soccer/football. Attempts to skirt/wikilawyer around the topic ban will be met with escalating blocks.
2. Any future attempts to skirt the interaction ban, as viewed by the community, will be met with an indefinite block. The usual exceptions to IBAN's still apply but attempts to game those exceptions will also be met with an indefinite block

Does that about sum it up? Blackmane (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's strict but I think it's the only solution. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• As a general comment, it seems like the general understanding of IBan (outside of this case) is that 1) both editors can edit the same article, but not interact with each other. and 2) commenting in a thread started by the other is interaction 2a) commenting in any thread the other has commented in is interaction and 3) that includes RFCs or other "official" discussions. Would not just establishing that commenting on official proposals, without mentioning the other person or their argument is acceptable resolve the issue, and let HiLo comment on the RFC? Other ways of interpreting IBan seem to be subject to easy gaming - if you can predict which articles/discussions someone will like get their first and its locked out. Yes we can handle that with topic/community bans, but why not just drop the king of the hill game and make IBan deal with actual interaction? I suppose that does makes it a bit more subjective to enforce... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

IBAN's are notoriously difficult to deal with. Just last week there was a rather lengthy discussion about an IBAN that is in force and whether there has been violations and/or gaming of it (not going to name parties, but regulars at ANI will know who I mean). I added in the condition "as viewed by the community" for obvious reasons. What one editor sees as an IBAN violation may/will not appear so to the violator. This condition solidifies the burden on a community consensus that a violation has occurred. Against a community consensus that the IBAN has been violated there is no wriggle room to wikilawyer around. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and warning - lets do this quickly and move on. Distasteful, but probably for the best. Jusdafax 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support For clarity, I had better sign here although I have supported above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Skyring's edits here and here indicate that they just don't get it. Consequently I support a block, but if consensus is for a topic ban and warning I will support that, but I rather think that if we choose to go down that route we'll just be back here once again pretty soon, since Skyring has shown that they are either unable or unwilling to understand that it is not just the letter of the law that matters but its spirit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Emphasize support of topic ban - Best case scenario: Skyring backs off HiLo altogether, HiLo is therefore able to relax a bit in discussions, Wikipedia gets improved. Worst case scenario: Skyring violates the topic ban or continues to try and skirt around the interaction ban, and gets an indefinite block. Either way, the disruption should pretty much end here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• What disruption are you talking about? Apart from this ANI thread, which I didn't start. Seriously now, if nobody can provide diffs or evidence of disruption, then this thing is going to be appealed to a more reliable forum. I posted on a talk page, continuing my pre-iban participation, and I did it without the intention of baiting or ***. Feel free to compare the tone of discussion in that thread with others on the page. Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

*comment I saw this coming from a mile away and the position that this would put User:Skyring|Pete in. However, I don't see any interruption of an IBAN going on here, neither Pete or the parties involved parties are interacting with each other directly. Where is the IBAN actually being broken here? What is actually going on? I don't see a "quick and dirty" fix as resolving anything in this case. No disruptive behaviour has resulted from either of the two open discussions and they have their own direction flow, in fact they are two completely different discussions. I wont bring the other user into this discussion because it's not about them, I just don't see what Pete is doing wrong here by having an open discussion thread. If I've missed anything in particular in the difs for this please enlighten me where this is the case. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• If you're not seeing the violation, then either you've not read the thread carefully enough, or you're just not looking properly. HiLo is well known to be a regular contributor to Australian soccer/association football articles, whereas Skyring is well known not to be. Beyond that, HiLo is actively discussing (in multiple places) the possibility of various name changes involving the articles. However, the real nail in the coffin is that HiLo supports things remaining at soccer (not that I'm saying he actively wants to move it, just that he is questioning various changes of the term); Skyring is very deliberately setting himself up in entirely the opposite position, by opening a thread that suggests that a move to "association football" is enacted, knowing full well that HiLo is prevented from posting there by the terms of the IBAN. This is a blatant violation of the spirit of the ban, as well as a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Skyring knows it full well, and you can see the smug undertones in some of his posts as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Smug undertones"? I have to laugh at some of the things being said here. Dead wrong, Lukeno94. Rattling chains is not what I'm about. That's mean, juvenile fun, and it's rather disappointing that so many are projecting their fantasy onto me. "Smug"? Geez. Spit on me a bit more, will ya? --Pete (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Meh - as an Australian editor I've had positive interactions with both (my little exchange with Pete during the original IBAN discussion probably not being among them). Like then, Pete seems determined to dig himself into a hole and not see what everyone else is seeing. If it was unintentional, starting a football discussion while under an IBAN with one of Australian-football-editing's most vocal participants is pretty dumb. If intentional, it's deliberately baiting and antagonistic, but I don't think that's what Pete is about. The simple course of action would be for Pete to accept it was pretty dumb and commit to editing in completely different areas. If he can do that then further action shouldn't be necessary. I'd only support action if he can't or won't - I don't think further action is justified at this stage. Stalwart111 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the original IBAN thread when I inadvertently breached it myself... I could not have expected to have been across that one, particularly when I spent a long spell out with not editing here. No offense to Pete, he seems pretty reasonable. HiLo on the other hand seems less so reasonable... BUT, Pete... SERIOUSLY man... Sometimes it seems you like to dig yourself a good hole. I have my issues with HiLo... But I also know exactly when to shut up and do what the administrators tell me to do.

Inadvertent or not I see both sides of this issue:

1) HiLo has A LOT of cheerleaders for the position he takes up and I could see them deliberately bringing issues to AN/I just to rattle those that oppose his position

on the other hand

2) Either deliberately, or not so opening up a discussion topic in an area where HiLo likes to patrol was more than a little silly... I saw what was going on as soon as the thread was opened. I just have a little faith that Pete didn't do this deliberately. Just my two cents worth...

I don't think Pete deserves a complete topic ban, but I think he should be more wary of inadvertently opening up discussions that he knows full well HiLo cannot contribute to. I'd also loath to see the position put forward here either by interpretation or otherwise that administrators are giving sway to one side of this polemic debate or another... There is already enough accusations flying around and we should all have a little more respect, particularly for admins, which HiLo in particular has at times been in open descent of. I think the current IBAN is enough with a warning that doing something like this again WILL result in a topic ban. I would not like to see a potential voice, one way or another on this matter removed completely and could see how topic banning Pete could be interpreted as giving sway to one particular side of the Soccer in Australia debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm grumpy because I don't like being railroaded, but I fully appreciate about digging myself an ever-deeper hole. Story of my life. Stalwart, you've come closer than anyone else here to saying something that resonates with me. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In your defence Pete, the last time I was dragged up here before AN/I similiar attempts at character assassination were tried on me with incorrect difs which resulted in HiLo48 running away from a boomerang. You should know as well as I do the types of things that go on with HiLo48 and his supporters and you should by now know better to walk into a situation where you can have your pants pulled down like this... Unfortunately, it's just a waiting game to see how the administrators here interpret this one. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may offer some advice in my turn? I'd appreciate it if we kept the other party out of this as much as possible. It's my actions under the telescope here, not anyone else's unless they contributed in some way. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, both in the context of this discussion and in your wider approach to the IBAN and editing in general (which, for each of you, really shouldn't be defined by the IBAN anyway). HiLo has a long history in particular topic areas and you have a long history in other topic areas. The areas where you naturally overlap seem few and far between. I'm all for expanding your horizons but as long as you can each expand them to areas the other has little interest in, you should be fine. In this instance you stumbled across one, probably should have left it alone but didn't. As I said before: meh. Dumb, not intentionally disruptive. Stalwart111 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dumb but not intentional, or at least I don't believe so, I believe Pete seems more reasonable than to throw stones at barking dogs --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as I think the proposal I'm offering below (in the same edit as this comment) probably works better. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

I propose that the existing IBAN is modified as follows: The interaction ban currently in force between Skyring (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs) is modified to exclude all articles related to association football, broadly construed. This exception also applies to all deletion-discussions related to such articles. This modification would allow Skyring to edit articles that HiLo48 have been editing without hindering HiLo48's ability to edit those articles. It's the least restrictive modification I can think of. (P.S. My proposal basically allows Skyring and HiLo48 to interact on articles related to association football (= soccer) as if the IBAN wasn't in place, and exceptions would apply to XfD/DR as those are not exactly on article/article talk namespace.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• No An IBAN was enacted to avoid pointless drama. What is the point of bending over backwards to provide a mechanism so the two users can snarl at each other in a topic where the issue will not be resolved for a another few years (I gather that "soccer" is slowly being replaced with "football" in some places in Australia, or some would like that—don't know which, and when/if that happens, the articles here will be renamed). A comment above includes "HiLo48 made a total of 303 edits starting in October 2009...", and that shows that Skyring's interest is recent and minor, and need not be accommodated. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I proposed this because we cannot assume (and probably shouldn't assume) that Skyring is doing it on purpose, on the basis of WP:AGF. Besides, if we take Skyring's initial response to the original request, we can safely assume that it probably would not re-introduce mess, if Skyring indeed only has passing interest. I do not see the harm of doing this. (Besides, remember, just as consensus can change, so can people's interests. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Categorically no - WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and given that Skyring and HiLo have plenty of history, assuming good faith is categorically not appropriate here, in the face of other evidence. This alteration is essentially saying to Skyring that he can start doing this at every article HiLo has ever edited, and can essentially render the IBAN moot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolution please?

It's almost a week. Things have not improved. Can I ask for some sort of resolution please? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My summation of the restrictions gathered a small amount of traction but I don't think any admin could really call it a clear consensus. I'd say that the only clear point is that there will be a final warning with regards to the IBAN. As for the topic ban proposal, I think there needs to be a much clearer consensus for support/opposing it. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think any closing admin might be swayed by that "Things have not improved" comment. But, apart from this thread, I've done little else on Wikipedia this past week.[36] My attention has been on family matters. So what sort of improvement is the community looking for here? --Pete (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think at this stage any topic ban could be seen as a clear breach in policy that AN/I is not used to resolve outcomes on RFCs. I also believe that consensus can and does change often enough, and furthermore based on previous discussions here a lot of the discussion going on at talk:Soccer in Australia has not crossed any particular line YET. Pete's infractions here by the standards of what has led up to this are relatively trivial in nature and I don't believe they were deliberate. A final warning not to do anything that could be construed as requiring interaction with HiLo48 is appropriate here... That means staying away from talk page discussions where HiLo48 is known to be present except for the purposes of voting. Pete should be allowed at this stage to edit any page that he wishes, so long as that doesn't at the same time involve interaction with HiLo48.

The long and the short of it is that Pete should stay as far away from HiLo48 as is practical, and vice versa... The simple message for most of us including Pete is that nothing good will come of these interactions which is why I have also self imposed my own restrictions here. It's clear we all feel strongly one way or another about all of this, but the long and the short of it is that nobody on that page or elsewhere in these or similar discussions is going to come to a common accord through regular discussions when they are dealing with views that are of two polar extremes. --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any RfC. And we don't vote on Wikipedia.

Can an Administrator PLEASE finalise this? It's over a week now since it got here. The existence of this discussion has led to more nonsense being posted about me and the page in question above, and to Pete/Skyring starting a farewell thread at Talk:Soccer in Australia, attracting even more nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Won't someone please think of me... HiLo you need to read the boy who cried wolf, poor you, poor, poor HiLo. You never stop to think you bring the nonsense on yourself... There is a vote going on actually at the moment about where we should go about this in a less drama filled manner and things such as this are exactly what I was talking about. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like HiLo any more than you do, but that post was bang out of line, and extremely unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gentlefolk. Please. I have the luxury of being able to say that this thread is about me. I have no control over it, nor would I wish anyone to feel they are unable to speak, but it is not helpful to attack others in this particular discussion.

Just me, apparently. :) --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Orestes, thank you for proving my point. I hope that when some helpful administrator finally notices this thread, they decide to also do something about you. Please go away. You are not helping anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion may sound funny…

Maybe it's out of line for me to propose that we all just follow the wikipolicy as laid down: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. Apart from the exceptions laid down in policy, one of which is dispute resolution in appropriate forums (such as AN/I).

Apparently I need do nothing at all to evoke complaints with bold fonts demanding urgent action, as we see above, which came three full days after my last contribution to the talk page of the article in question. The timestamps tell the story.

So, instead of guessing the states of minds of two different individuals, why not simply apply the iban as per policy and if one side or the other does something that is clearly disruptive or a clear breach of the ban, then we don't need to argue over whether an editor owns a particular article or discussion or RfC or whatever, the evidence will be right there as a diff.

I'm a big boy now, well into my seventh decade, and I'm prepared to own up to my sins, such as they are.

I don't think a topic ban or series of topic bans is needed to prevent either of us from editing the same pages or discussions, so long as we avoid each other. That's the purpose of an iban. And if we want to !vote on a question which interests us both, such as this one, from which HiLo48 may have felt excluded, then we should be able to do so. That is only fair.

After all, our longstanding areas of interest overlap in the field of Australian politics, and if we attempt to sort out who came first to a thread and who had more contributions, then there are going to be some right tangles to unravel!

I don't mind editors holding contrary views. I think it is good for the Wikipedia to have different points of view and different opinions. We seem to have been able to write good articles on controversial topics - such as this one - where strongly-held editorial opinions differ. So long as we editors are civil to each other, follow wikipolicy, and AGF, all goes well.

Why not do the same in this case? Just, you know, follow policy. No action required but both parties warned that itchy eyes are upon them and clear transgressions will be sternly and swiftly acted upon.--Pete (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Compairing how many edits Pete did Compared to HeLo48, I found that Pete only did 6.4% of HiLo48`s edits, So why would he be hounding? Happy Attack Dog (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 has made over 300 edits to the talk page starting in 2009, while prior to the incident in question, Pete only had a dozen edits starting in August 2013. Pete has now camped on that talk page and shows a commitment to arguing strongly against HiLo48's position now and in the future. That is what is known as WP:GAMING an WP:IBAN because HiLo48 cannot respond to anything that Pete says, and while an IBAN allows for two parties to make separate comments in a RfC or whatever, the soccer/football topic cannot be fully resolved (because it involves changes that are allegedly happening in real-world word usage), so the only reasonable outcome is to ask Pete to work elsewhere. Not doing that would make all interaction bans void because, by this precedent, one party could always oppose the other party in any topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Editors do not own articles. I participated in discussion on the page prior to the interaction iban and I continued after - avoiding all interaction with the other party. As per policy.
• Editors do not "camp" on articles. In point of fact I haven't participated there since 7 February in a section headed "Goodbye".[37]
• Ibans cut both ways. The other party cannot respond directly to my comments and I cannot respond directly to his. That's how ibans work. It's not a one-sided affair.
• The policy on ibans and RfCs, AfDs and similar !votes is discussed here. The statement, "it is permissible to comment at discussions such as AfDs (and presumably DYKs), even if the discussion was initiated by one of the parties to the iBAN, as long as the comments directly relate to the content and not the person", is consistent with policy.
• The weight of opinion on a name change here (initiated by User:Gnangarra here) is strongly in favour of a change. One editor plus or minus on either side makes little difference, but no bar has been placed on participation by any editor and I think it is only fair that all interested editors have a say. Such a !vote is not an infraction in the words of policy or the eyes of any reasonable person.
• Editors oppose other editors in their opinions as a matter of course. It is commonplace. Every editor reading this would have expressed disagreement with another's opinion. It is hardly surprising. That is why we have a range of policies to deal with differences. WP:CIVILITY for example. An interaction ban doesn't mean that one editor or another gets a free ride in !votes and discussion. It means that two editors do not interact with each other.
• All we need do is stick to the policy laid down at WP:IBAN. Going against policy and process is a short cut to confusion, dissent and appeals to ArbCom. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal for User:Katrina Villegas

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

---

As per Callanecc's suggestion I thought of bringing this issue up here. I know it wasn't that long since Katrina started posting and copy-pasting hoax articles of Filipino child actors, but this is eventually becoming a nuisance, given his persistent and relentless efforts at recreating and spawning faked articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - Having had to perform unnecessary good-faith research until it occurred to me that this might be a sock jobber, I would support a ban so that future victims could revert all edits instead of having to go through requisite good faith welcomes, and good faith explanations for why you deleted their hoax articles, and good faith warnings, and good faith detailed reportings at AIV or SPI... Because we all spend far more time getting our "this person is an asshole, and here's the proof" case together than the sockpuppet spends committing their nonsense over and over again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed on that, as that would save time with knowing what's going on. Not to mention that since this is a regional, Philippine-centric subject, and relatively few people from outside the country knows the ins and outs when it comes to local showbiz, it would be of significant benefit for other users and admins to be informed about Kat's modus operandi. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support ban – Agree with Cyphoidbomb; this editor has wasted far too many others' time. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamped to prevent archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Persistent disruption over several months --JamesMoose (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Persistent hoaxers have absolutely no place here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Chronic hoaxsters have no place on Wikipedia.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I am surprised that stronger action wasn't taken much sooner. If someone is knowingly creating hoaxes, they should be banned (not indef blocked, but banned) on the spot. We shouldn't have need to go through two dozen sock accounts before getting to this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's clear that this editor not only has no interest in improving the encyclopedia, but is intentionally harming it and a ban will give people more support in stopping further damage. -- Atama頭 22:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe

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

---

CensoredScribe has already violated his topic ban regarding categories by adding several pages to Category:Size change in fiction, Category:Giants in television, Category:Giants in films, and Category:Fictional characters who can change size: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. I was alerted to this when he edited Power Rangers and Ultraman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong you are mistaken. The restriction I was given according to User:Georgewilliamherbert is for making new categories; not adding to existing categories. "Per [7] the community has concluded that the following editing restriction is placed on your editing, going forwards:

CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank)."Size change is quite clearly an element of ultraman and power rangers no one would deny as they are in every single episode. Please discuss why you don't think these examples are not appropriate; rather than just revert; it is more encyclopedic and sets a better example. I would like to know why you are doing this. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A good portion of the debate was held because of your poor determinations of whether or not the categories you added met WP:DEFINING, and it was my impression that the actual topic ban also included that, beyond whatever Georgewilliamherbert posted on your user talk page. However, I cannot seem to find the discussion in the archives at the moment to confirm this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone have an opinion on whether this revert (of admittedly poor content) is abuse of rollback? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have rollback anymore. And as far as I was aware that was one of several poor category additions/changes. I did not know it was just a really bad sentence added to that one page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You should still have added an edit summary. It wasn't clear why you'd reverted and that wasn't vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  A minor quibble I know, but that was done with Twinkle, not with rollback, so not using an edit summary was definitely out of line. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here. And even then, WP:rollback is allowed to be used to revert multiple problematic, even though not vandalistic, changes across several pages given that the user of rollback leaves a message on the talk page of the other editor. As it was the case here and all last week, CensoredScribe posted something on my talk page before I even had a chance to go to his.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't see the content of the edit until it was pointed out here.? So you just effectively "rolled it back" without even looking at it? Am I reading that correctly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  I hit "revert" on every edit he made that seemed to be related to the ones I saw pop up on my watchlist. So one of them was not the same as the others and I didn't double check it and was not aware of this fact until brought up by Drmies. Who gives a shit? It was not a great edit anyway. And as I stated above, I would have gone to CensoredScribe's user talk to explain the problems with the edits he made but he is just too god damn fast and went to me first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban on CesoredScribe against any mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions, and any other large changes to categories. He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. You don't impose sanctions on an editor for not violating a topic ban. Either find proof that this editor was formally banned from adding existing categories, or start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories actually being problematic behavior in and of itself, or leave him alone. Wnt (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  "start a new case based on his modifications of existing categories" This is a new topic ban for a new case. See Ryulong's diffs above. User fails to meet WP:DEFINING as described above. Same problems existed in the ANI thread 3 days ago.--v/r - TP 05:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is you shouldn't confuse whether he's violating a ban with whether he's violating policy. My interpretation of the OP was that the diffs demonstrated he was violating the ban, rather than violating WP:DEFINING. It's hard for me without knowledge of the topic to evaluate that; I would assume that so long as one giant Power Ranger character exists that is redirected to Power Rangers, the article can be properly categorized under Giants in Fiction. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If one character in all of a work of fiction for which there are probably several hundred named characters falls into one esoteric category, it's okay to categorize that whole work of fiction within that category?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The way you put it I don't know; as I said I don't know the series. But if he says size change occurs in just about every episode, I'm more likely to believe his characterization than yours, because he actually seems to like this stuff. In any case, someone better figure out - if the basis for a topic ban is that his interpretation of DEFINING is unacceptably poor, someone ought to know whether the edits cited are defining or not, right? Wnt (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with the understanding that he can only add-remove categories where it is obvious that he has been editing the article, not just minor changes and then a category change. I would also support a complete topic ban for anything to do with categories. I got no response when I posted to his talk page telling him that adding El Cid to Category:Mythological sword fighters was inappropriate, and I have now no confidence in his ability to deal with categories at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as it should've been put in place in the last ANI thread, irrespective of Ryulong's questionable actions/behaviour. The example highlighted Dougweller shows that CensoredScribe at best has no idea what they are doing, and at worst, is being willfully disruptive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, CensoredScribe's incompetence in this area is troubling, as he has constantly been made aware for months now that his categorizations are not proper, and even with an ANI thread that has forbidden him from making new categories, he thinks it's perfectly fine to treat existing categories the same way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support. This editor has demonstrated, alas, that he requires further experience with Wikipedia before he can be trusted with categorisation. A topic ban will allow time for him to learn the ropes without the temptation to act, and once he can demonstrate he groks the system, it can be lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Administrativd Note - I do not believe any violation of the existing topic ban I enacted has happened, and told CS so on his talk page. However, for evident reasons, I have asked them to stop all category related edits while this ANI discussion runs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban on any category edits - This user has taken up far too much time from other editors policing their edits around categories, not just creating categories but in their addition of articles to inappropriate categories. I've had my run ins, and some of the warnings on his talk page are from me, but it's taking up far too much of everyone's time now and it's becoming unfortunately obvious that they are not able to make sound decisions when it comes to adding an article to a category or not. Canterbury Tail talk 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe Power Rangers having size change is being questioned is it? Every single monster they fight does as much, if they have to constantly be using the power for it to count than superman doesn't have any powers at all by Ryulongs definition. Compared to the other 100 some fictional swordsmen I have added; which were not reverted; I think making an honest mistake with classifying El Cid as a mythological sword fighter is acceptable. None of the characters from bleach were listed as swordsmen before I mentioned it. Why don't we actually discuss whether any of the films or anime I've been adding categories to legitimately feature size growth or giants in fiction? What other category have I been adding to and creating a problem for, exactly? CensoredScribe (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  CensoredScribe, this isn't about your particular choices on a handful of articles. This is about your established inability to understand WP:DEFINING.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Massive process fail We have a tradition, which makes some sense, that Block discussions belong in ANI while ban discussions belong in AN. OP started a post in ANI with an allegation of a topic ban violation, but no proposed remedy. Perhaps the expectation was a short block, but it wasn't stated. Then it is pointed out that the edits were not a violation of the ban. Some felt the edits were not appropriate, so think a revised topic ban is warranted. Maybe it is, but modifying the terms of a topic ban belong in AN. As for whether a ban is appropriate, I see six edits identified, and unless I miss something, not a single edit to the editors page identifying a problem. I don't think we should be topic banning an editor without a single word to the editor identifying the problem. Recommendation - drop this discussion, explain to CensoredScribe why the edits are not ideal, and see if it continues. If so, entertain a topic ban in AN.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  What? Why should this venue matter? Why should the fact that I did not mention a remedy matter? We already had a ban discussion here last week about CensoredScribe where he should have understood what the issue was. He clearly has not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well, not specifying a remedy makes it hard for editors to support a remedy. You are in ANI, which hints you were looking for a block. But you did not say. Why should we have to guess? Maybe you just wanted someone to talk to the editor? I did. You had a ban discussion,a nd told the editor to stop doing certain things. Now you are bringing something else up. Fair enough, but they deserve a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  You asked why venue matters. ANI is specifically a place to ask for admin actions. What admin action are you requesting? A topic ban is NOT an admin action.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well I came here because I thought he was violating his topic ban which obviously would have resulted in a block. And the fact that he and I were both blocked for 3 days is enough of a warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Ryulong how would power rangers work without size changing monsters? What does Ultraman do? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant to this discussion, CensoredScribe. And learn to indent FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He didn't violate any rule, he not creating new categories, only adding to existing ones. Are the examples listed valid edits? I don't know enough about most of the series to comment. I believe Ultraman has constant size changing in that work of fiction, having the capsule monsters that the guy who made Pokemon said inspired him. So that would be a valid category there. Dream Focus 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  The issue with WP:DEFINING was problematic beyond his creation of new categories and was brought up by SummerPhD in the previous thread and one before that and tons of sections on his user talk. Simply banning him from making new categories without discussing them beforehand has not solved the issue with his complete lack of understanding of WP:DEFINING and the evidence that he is competent enough to edit, something brought up in both threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Time to close? I've contributed to the discussion so I am not comfortable closing it, but it is now clear that the original request was for a block, and there's no support for a block. There may be reasons to consider modifying the ban, but I'd like to see clearer identifications of the problems, and continued violation before even considering a ban. If that happens, propose a ban at AN. Can we close this?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No... A, you misunderstand the venue issue above, both AN and ANI have served both roles repeatedly, and B, there's a rough consensus now for the wider ban. Closing now would be a disservice to enough discussion to see if an slternative is supported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to change the rules to allow ban discussions here, then we need to change the rules first. Please see the note on Wp:An

Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals,(emphasis added)

Note the absence of such language on Wp:ANI Do we mean what we say, or not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil, See: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community bans and restrictions. To quote:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The "preferred" is and has been in theory rather than in practice. ANI has seen half plus epsilon of such discussions since CBAN was first permitted. This is not unusual or against policy or precedent... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we totally ignore the longstanding process, and allow a topic ban discussion, I do not envy the closer.

• User:TParis proposes prohibiting "mass-changes, mass-additions, mass-deletions..." without defining "mass". The diffs show examples of up to three. Adding three categories to one article constitutes "mass-additions" Seriously?
• User:Dougweller supports a topic ban but defines it differently than TP.
• User:Lukeno94 supports a topic ban but doesn't specify which of the two options are supported.
• User:The Bushranger supports a topic ban, but words it differently than any listed above.

So the first task of the closer is to figure out which topic ban is being supported.

The second challenge for the closer is to confirm that the editor has been sufficiently warned.

The editor was given a topic ban on 6 February. There is a single edit after that date identifying issues with categorization. Are we seriously about to enact a topic ban on the basis of one warning? Seriously, what is the harm in explaining to the editor what edits are problematic, and considering a ban if editing behavior does not change?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was supporting User:TParis's proposal with the alternative of being banned from all category work. I understood "He may add-remove categories from any one article that he is focused on editing specifically." as defining mass, my wording means basically the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller is correct, I was very specific that CS can edit a single article and add cats. But he cannot make mass changes to many different articles to add a bunch of cats. That editing is where he becomes problematic.--v/r - TP 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A note: Topic ban proposals are regularly held here, as are community bans; it is the latter that are technically supposed to be primarily noted on the "regular" AN. As to the editor being sufficiently warned, the last ANI thread should show that. I support a complete topic ban from anything to do with categories primarily, and anything leading up to that on a secondary basis. To resume being disruptive immediately after that thread, it doesn't matter how many times it happened, it needs to be stopped from happening again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand what's wrong with the fifth cited edit. CensoredScribe put Honey, I Blew Up the Kid in Category:Giants in film. Ryulong reverted this. [44] Now even I've seen that one - the kid is a giant in that, isn't he? I see he also removed the category from Attack of the 50 Foot Woman,^[45] and the two edit warred (as on some other pages) for some time, but there a third party eventually reinserted it. I mean, what's the explanation for how this isn't a case of Giants in film? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my original thought, but it is a new category, which I believe was covered under the topic ban.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see an edit history for this category going back to 2012. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't research it, but I looked at the edit and saw the cat at the bottom of the page in red. I believe Category:Giants in film exists, but the edit was to add Category:Giants in films (one letter difference). I do not know whether it was a typo, or whether the editor attempted to create a new cat which turns out to be close to an existing one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done adding categories; all categories need to have some kind of definition as to how much of the work needs to be dedicated to a concept for it to be defining of that work. An element only appearing at the climax would still be important to the plot even if it has relatively little screen time. I will post on the categories for discussion what the definition of defining should be. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Constant comments like these from CensoredScribe show that he is not aware what WP:DEFINING is and a ban regarding all categories is necessary. He has been told repeatedly that simply because something happens within one episode it does not mean that the whole of the TV show falls within that category.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(UTC)

CensoredScribe's discussion of the issue attempts to define how much screen time an element need have to be a "defining" element. This is after repeated attempts to explain that we need secondary sources using the element as defining[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]etc. To be fair, CS started most of these talk threads. However, that's pretty much all CS did: start the thread and abandon it. As a result, my comments are repetitious. One-sided conversations are not my specialty. I don't think CS "gets" that we want verifiable characteristics that reliable sources say are defining. More to the point, I don't see any indication that CS can "get" it at the moment. As I was probably too involved in this mess at the beginning, I'm not giving my mop-and-bucket-less opinion on a topic ban. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Enough is enough is enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban for CensoredScribe from anything remotely having to do with categories. Edits like this [58] show an inability to understand WP categorization and to work constructively with other editors. Ryūlóng may have been a bit over-hasty at times, but CS is the underlying problem here. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You may want to make it more clear that even adding a category requires a reference; as I have never seen a category with a reference tag directly following it on any page before. I assume you want an acclaimed critic or academic scholar saying something was defining like I did with Superman the unauthorized biography which supports the idea he is a vigilante with a reference to the comic in question. Also, I would like to note that only on my talk page not on an ANI discussion has someone mentioned Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories which would have been more useful for this kind of discussion than categories for discussion. Cfd specifically does not mention the word creation; finding the proper place to propose categories took much longer than I expected and no one was willing to help me. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh my god, CensoredScribe just stop. If you are not banned from adding categories to pages as is the current consensus here, any category that is added to a page must be corroborated by the article's content and be considered a defining aspect of the work. Just because one character grows 50 feet tall in one single part of a work of fiction does not mean the whole work of fiction meets the "Size change in fiction" requirements. Just because one fictional character is enslaved for a very small portion of its existence does not mean that character can be considered a "fictional slave". If what you want to categorize the article is not mentioned in the article or by any reputable sources, then don't put it into that category. It's just common sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - CensoredScribe is now creating bad faith category for deletion requests. See Catgeory:Mansions in fiction for instance. I quote the nomination rationale. "I think this is a valid category which would demonstrate the view of the rich as seen in fiction. The category would presumably include a lot of gothic fiction like Batman, the Adams Family, The Munsters and Dark Shadows. However as I am wrong about categories; this means this category should be deleted for being trivial." Canterbury Tail talk 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? The only other person who chimed in there also !voted to delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• SNUHRN, did you actually read the rationale? The category may be prime for deletion, but that rationale was hugely out of line, and clearly in violation of WP:POINT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Have been watching this from the sidelines for a while and I'd also throw in my support for a very broadly construed topic ban on all things related to Categories per Andrew Lenahan. However, given the above disruptive behaviour, I wouldn't be averse to an indef block. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The witch hunt will probably continue, but I can't say nothing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for anything remotely related to categories - a bad-faith nomination of a category (regardless of its actual merits) has to be the last straw. Furthermore, CensoredScribe should be formally warned that any further such behaviour (whether related to categories or not) is going to result in an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I was very critical of CensoredScribe pre-block, it seems like most of the argument here are for editing decisions that were done before the block which would make an expanded block more like punishment. I haven't checked every diff posted here but I think an expanded topic block is only warranted if there have been egregious (not minor) mistakes post-block. Let's see if the current editing restrictions are effective first before expanding them.

Like many discussions on blocking editors, what is palpable is other editors' frustration with CS's past behavior. But he was given a block for that behavior which is over. An expanded topic block/editing restriction should be based on his editing decisions after coming off a block. I also don't think it's wasted time discussing this if it helps one editor to become a more productive contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

He is continuing problematic behavior after the block expired, even if it was not exactly what he was initially banned for because everyone wanted to be soft on him. But his categorization ability has been problematic for longer. SummerPhD had several discussions with him on his talk page and he was brought to ANI before the ban and block were put in place. It's clear from his CFDs for Category:Mansions in fiction and Category:Martial arts tournament films that he does not even know what things meet CFD. There's been enough coddling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per TParis.BMK (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. While every editor deserves the benefit of the doubt, CensoredScribe clearly has no concept of appropriate categorization, and his disruptive editing is distracting others from making more productive contributions. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Harrassment and inappropriate PRODding by an Editor

An article created by Rpo.castro has been sent to AfD here, where I agreed with the nomination. There has been a bit of discussion between the Rpo.castro and myself about whether the sources he provided are routine, but nothing that I would consider uncivil or out of hand. However, I checked my watchlist to find that all of a sudden he had PRODed over 50 articles I had created in about 20 minutes, as can be seen here - though I note, not one edit summary to explain what had happened. This seems to me to be a complete over-reaction, and a blatant and repeated contravention of the first part of WP:POINT. Furthermore, though I am not discussing the specific merits of the nominations which I do not see as relevant at the moment, the quantity of nominations in such a short period of time is not only extremely POINTY-y, but tantamount to harrassment, particularly because:

• None of the PRODs were nominated properly, so I only saw them on my watchlist,
• I did not receive any comment about his concerns prior to PRODDING on my talk page, something I would expect to see if he had widespread concerns.
• None of the PRODs were added to the WP:FOOTY list, which is common practice.

If this is not harrassment, then at best it is the disruptive actions of someone who does not know how to nominate articles properly, nor how to engage in constructive discussion when they have major issues. I would propose a ban for a period of time on Rpo.castro nominating articles for deletion.

It may be complete coincidence, but at almost the same time, I noticed 144.64.1.99 reverted a number of random edits I had made across both football and non-football articles, with no clear rhyme or reason, nor any indication as to why they had done this, as can be seen here. Not sure whether this is the same editor, but seems weird that both things should happen in the same day. Fenix down (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I did a Geolocate on the IP 144.64.1.99 and it seems to be Portuguese. I believe it's the same IP used by Rpo.castro (talk · contribs) who is creating/updating the Atlantic Cup articles, which is held in Algarve, Portugal. Too much of a coincidence. JMHamo (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't doubt that the IP is that editor--note the times. All the IP edits were made in a gap in Rpo.castro's edits, and at some point maybe they realized that PRODding is much easier when you're logged in and can use a gadget. Now, all this took place a little while ago and blocking now would be punitive. However, I agree that this editor should a. not do anything in the realm of deletion for a while (perhaps a ban can be proposed, don't know if that's necessary) and b. stay away from Fenix down's edits. If they do any of this again they should be blocked on the spot to keep it in check. (Next time, Fenix, find someone with mass rollback, like me--it's easy and good for my edit count.)

  Rpo.castro, we're still waiting on an explanation. Next disruptive edit, you are likely to be blocked, and maybe for a long time, for harassment. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Drmies:, thanks for the offer of help if this happens again, I'll be sure to take you up on it. Not sure I understand your comment about this all taking place a little while ago, it took place yeasterday evening (11/02/14), both RPO.castro's and the IP edits, though I am not here looking for a total block, just for him to understand that that behaviour is not acceptable and to stay away from PRODdin / AfDing util they can prove they know how to do it properly and appropriately. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Fenix down, I understand if you want action taken; perhaps TParis might do that for you. When I say "a little while ago" I meant something like "not happening right now". Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so blocking someone for something they're not doing now isn't really right. TParis reads this differently: he would argue, I think, that the issue here is not a temporary disruptive spree but rather a kind of WP:HOUNDING. He might argue that even if the editor is not currently PRODding your stuff, they are still harassing you with their very presence. (My block would be for disruption, TParis's for harassment, I think.) If TParis and I disagree, it's only slightly, in the meaning of that disruptive spree--for TParis it's evidence of a character trait, for me it's a temporary, and hopefully one-time, complete loss of good manners. If it happens again TParis was clearly right; if it doesn't the editor may have learned a lesson. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree @Drmies:, I hope it was just a one-off, and no damage was done. He is aware that it has been raised here and that there will be further repurcussions if anything like that happens again. Would like to wait a day or two before closing in case he comes back or wishes to add a comment himself, but am happy to have it recorded as a one-off event if nothing further happens in the next couple of days. Thanks for your attention on this. Fenix down (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm of a different opinion than Drmies. I think we don't need editors on Wikipedia who will mass PROD 50+ pages just for revenge. It would be protective of Wikipedia to remove this editor which is exactly what the block button is for.--v/r - TP 02:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • TParis, for all the abusive admin commentary I hear about me, I may well be too soft. I'm not likely to block someone for one angry outburst, as antisocial and disruptive as this one was, but you are, as always, free to disagree with me, and I couldn't fault you for it. Mind you, I have not looked at the user's other edits (all this FOOTY stuff bores me), so I can't really tell if they're a net positive in the first place. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, true. But that doesn't mean that blocks are only done when an editor is in the midst of misbehavior. If you have a vandalism-only account, for example, who has been inactive for days, and the vandalism is only now being discovered and reverted, it wouldn't be punitive to block that editor indefinitely because you're preventing future action from an account that has shown itself to be of no benefit to Wikipedia. If you want to use that kind of rationale in this particular case, however, you'd have to establish that this editor is too much of a danger to allow to contribute to the project any longer. I think that both TParis and Drmies have good points and I think a compromise can be reached here. If the editor is given an "only warning" that if this kind of behavior can lead to an indefinite block if repeated, I think it will satisfy both concerns. The editor is given a chance to avoid the behavior again, but in such a way that we make it clear that such behavior isn't tolerated. And if the behavior is repeated, an immediate indefinite block can reinforce that statement. -- Atama頭 17:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Windows66

Hi everyone. The main cause of the problems with this user is my contribution in the article Black people in Nazi Germany - I developed it in hyperlinks and added a few important notes inclung changes in the head of the article. I stated that Black people during the Nazi rule in Germany were persecuted in a similar way to Gypsies and Poles. True? Yes, this is true indeed.

However, "Windows66" reverted my contribution and instantly wrote me a message on my [Talk page suggesting that he fixed some information]. What he actually did is leaving my contribution unchanged, hyperlinks and other stuff untouched, but he removed the word "ethnic Poles", insinuating that Poles were pure Aryans and were not persecuted for their racial origin as Slavs. He denied the fact that Poles, Serbs and other Slavs were also classified as "Untermenschen" (subhuman) which in the Polish law is classified as the par of Holocaust denial. He said there is no evidence for that and suggested that it is impossible to prove it. So... I started reverting his reverts. He subsequently flooded my talk-page with tons of useless information which I was unable to read and analyse within a quarter of an hour, while [he tells other users not to put even short messages on his talk page]

He perfectly knows the Wikipedia rules and manupulates them in order to shut people's mouths and scare them by numerous accusations, persuaded some administrator to give me a warning for multiple reverts. Then I asked him if he doesn't like Poles or maybe has some prejudice while I found out that he is searching for and editing all the information about the struggles of Polish nation during the World War II in terms of Racial policy of Nazi Germany. And so I received another warning, this time he convinced another administrator (who eventually turned out to be friendly and helpful), Windows66 he did it behind my back without notifying me, so I receiuved a next warning, this time he accused me for accusing him... mainly for antipolonism, racism and Holocaust denial, as I asked does he hate Poles and why so. Well, my bad. I got mad for his stubborn denial of the historical truth.

Then again he accused me of having some "sock-puppets", talking to him from several different IP addresses or even being some other user who is in fact anyhow connected to me. Since the time "Windows66" is constantly stalking me by tracing my contribs in order to eventually revert them if he wishes to, writing messages to me despite i opted for making peace with him.

Meanwhile, sometime ago he clearly stated: "I do not agree that Slavic people as a group were the main victims after Jews and Gypsies". That means, what he denied the groundbreaking and historically proven statistics which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

And so here I am.... pictured as an aggressor, the worst enemy you could ever imagine, only for trying to defend the historical truth and keeping it on Wikipedia. I omit the fact that I am the victim here and i feel helpless while "Windows66" knows how to juggle the Wikipedia rules so good, that he knows when he can use irony or flood someone's talk-page; I just want you all to know, that I am a defender of historical truth, I safrificed a considerable amount of time for this guy to explain things to him, and finally, I wanted to make peace with him as first - he rejected. (see: User talk:Yatzhek). PS - I come from Poland so forgive me for my mistakes in English. Yatzhek (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you summerize your complaint for us? or atleast add some whitespace? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This user Yatzhek is still attempting the pathetic sympathy card, this user thinks its acceptable to label me racist, anti-Polish, white supremacist and a Holocaust denier. The user got warned for accusing me of Holocaust denial and is STILL continuing this nonsense. You do not have any problems with English so quit the dumb act you are not fooling anyone now, see further up when I reported this user, cheers admins. See this for my previous reporting of this user and the evidence against the user.

Lets look at how this started here, I then proceeded in making a discussion via the talk page of the user here (the even original title of the new section was changed by the user), I then failed to get any cooperation with the user, see here (although the user has removed some information). I then asked Diannaa about the situation, see here which you can see Yatzhek accuse me here of being racist, anti-Polish, a Holocaust denier and a white supremacist (this can be found elsewhere), see here, see here for the failed cooperation with this user me asking for a response with sources and proof and the response is the rant from Yatzhek.

In regards to denying "groundbreaking statistics" is not the case, the user asked me if I believe they were the most persecuted after Jews and Gypsies in which I replied no, this is personal opinion and is not denying anything, see here and my reply here.

I find it hilarious that the user only under an hour ago said he/she will leave me alone and has now created this, see this yet now this has cropped up. Petty little tedious mind games.--Windows66 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the case having wandered to have a look due to the RFPP request, and I don't think Yatzhek has a leg to stand on. Claiming that Poles were on the same level as Gypsies at the time of the Nuremberg Laws is simply inaccurate; if Yatzhek had read what he was referencing, he would see that the Nuremburg Laws were enacted in 1935, whilst it was another four or five years before the proclamation that Gypsies and Poles were comparably "undesirable" was made (as is evidenced by the fact that it is "German soldiers" that are the issue). Anyone trying to search for "Polish" or "Pole" will find nothing in the Nuremberg Laws article. I'm fairly sure that Serbs were not, by default, put at the same level of the scale as black people or Jews were. I'm also fairly sure that the IPs are indeed Yatzhek whilst logged out; the coincidences are just too great. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have put you on the noticeboard mainly because you did it to me earlier while I feel innocent, and I think you totally deserve being checked by the administrators because your contributions are highly questionable. Your behaviour is a hidden-irony connected with personal attacks under the cover of presenting the sources. you won't let noone edit the articles you watch, even if the person would add some sources. By saying "HAHAHAHA" you simply prove your arrogance and ironic attitude towards everyone who tries to open a debate with you.

Why did you present the Nuremberg Laws as your main source and stick to it all the time? It's simply - you want others to see the racial policy of the Nazis only from one source and omit other existing sources and decretes.

PS - you say about your personal opinion, and as far as I see, you are trying to force your personal opinions in the Wikipedia articles by your contributions.

Yatzhek (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yatzhek, whilst I am inclined to agree with you on the fact Windows66 was being inappropriate in their comment, the fact remains that your edits were factually inaccurate. If you read my post above yours, you will see why. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar dispute is taking place on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Poles and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#Slavic_peoples

Poles and other Slavs, especially the East Slavic nations, were viewed as racially inferior "subhumans" (second-class "Aryans" ?) destined to be exterminated, enslaved or deported, see Generalplan Ost.

• Oliver Rathkolb, Revisiting the National Socialist Legacy: Coming to Terms With Forced Labor, Expropriation, Compensation, and Restitution, p.84 : "The European peoples to be conquered were hierarchically ranked into alien and Germanic races. Accordingly, there were plans to give Europe a new structure: In Western Europe a work sharing industrial society under German leadership, in the countries of the East, Southeast and later South the exploitation of raw materials and manpower. Being Slavs the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Serbs were only slightly above the Jews in the racial hierarchy. Their fate was to be enslavement or death. ... The realisation of these aims began immediately after German troops had entered Poland on September 1, 1939. ... Shortly afterwards, the deportation of civilian workforce - men and women - followed. At the same time, the Nazi-party and the Gestapo launched a campaign against so-called Slavic "Untermenschen" (subhumans) and "human beasts". This campaign even reached the farthest schools." -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I admit I was a bit awkward and rightly so Yatzhek is refusing to accept he is wrong and is now asking my personal opinion on things which I have on more than one time told is not what talk pages are for and when I have presented evidence it has been deleted. The IP's are obviously Yatzhek's and it is quite clear this is sock puppets because its three different IP's. Why can't you not just let it go Yatzhek? It doesn't matter if you feel whatever, I have not broken any rules and you are wasting your time trying to report me here simply because I reported you, I reported you for accusing me of Holocaust denial, racism, being anti-Polish and also a white supremacist, see WP:PA. Now kindly stop sending me absolute nonsense on my talk pages and try to contribute towards articles not have a go at another user and then play the sympathy cry card when you have been warned and reported, and yet after this you STILL continue. When will you stop?--Windows66 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin input: edit-warring and BLP violations at Stanton Glantz

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

---

Could I ask someone to have a word with FergusM1970 (talk · contribs) regarding his behavior on our biography of Stanton Glantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? FergusM1970 apparently has contempt for Glantz, whom he refers to as "Stan the Glans", and is edit-warring to insert contentious material based solely on a personal blog, in clear violation of WP:BLP ([59], [60]). On the talkpage, FergusM1970 denigrates Glantz (a member of the Institute of Medicine and a professor of cardiology at UCSF) as lacking "any sort of medical qualification". He's also accused Glantz on the talkpage of being "a single-issue hack" who's committing research fraud in service of a political agenda. Presumably WP:BLP imposes some limits on the amount of unsourced defamation we permit on talkpages, as well as the sources we use in articles. As I've already commented on the talkpage, I would like external input from uninvolved admins. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I made one revert, checked the rules on RS and left it at that. As for Stan Glantz, I didn't "accuse" him of not having any sort of medical qualification. He DOESN'T have any sort of medical qualification and my source for that is his UCSF profile page. Nor is it me who accused him of research fraud; that was Dr Michael Siegel, who DOES have some medical qualifications.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If we were serious about enforcing our policies in relation to content, BLP and MEDRS as we are about "civility", we would issue an indefinite block. If no one else is willing to and no one gives me a good reason not to, I'll do it. NW (Talk) 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where MEDRS comes in and frankly, given how quickly MastCell accused me of edit-warring, I think I was reasonably civil. As for Glantz it is a fact that he doesn't have a medical degree and it is a fact that a professor from Boston University has accused him of misrepresenting research in pursuit of the (single) issue which has occupied his entire career.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Glantz has a Ph.D. rather than an M.D., which is fairly common in public-health research. Many of the world's leading experts on epidemiology and public health are Ph.D.'s, not M.D.'s. But you misleadingly presented this distinction as a means of discrediting Glantz, and claimed that he was completely unqualified in his professional field. That's an obvious falsehood. As for the accusations of research fraud, I hope you now understand that a personal blog is not a suitable source for such material. Your own commentary went far beyond even that personal blog in terms of malice and abusiveness toward the biography subject, and you need to appreciate that you cannot use this project as a platform to express your contempt for article subjects, even if you believe some guy's blog supports your viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He does indeed have a PhD, but it's not in medicine - it's in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems. He has no medical qualifications and his postdoc work, while in cardiology, was in purely mechanical aspects. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ergo not a falsehood.

You should really take that up with the world-renowned medical school where Glantz holds a professorship, and with the Institute of Medicine, where he was elected a member. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear that they've got an impostor in their midst. In the meantime, I take it we're in agreement about the need to knock off this sort of nonsense on Wikipedia, at least? MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In general I have great respect for UCSF's medical school - my girlfriend works there, for someone who has an actual medical degree (and a Nobel prize) - but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to tobacco control. One of Glantz's colleagues, Prue Talbot, recently wrote a paper on nicotine inhalation based on a few YouTube videos she'd watched, which to my humble brain seems less than scientifically rigorous. Of course none of that changes the fact that Glantz has no medical qualifications and is a single-issue activist, but yes, I should have been less intemperate. A couple of his fellow activists got my blood boiling earlier and I should have cracked a beer and calmed down before editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot that after the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, the Dean of the Medical School, the Provost, Chancellor and Board of Trustees of the UC System, the American Public Health Association, and the Institute of Medicine, I that we have one final layer of review to determine whether someone can truly be qualified as a real expert in their field. No, it's plainly obvious what's going on here—you either dislike the guy's work or you dislike him personally. That is unacceptable and you step away immediately. NW (Talk) 21:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not an expert; I said he doesn't have any medical qualifications, which he doesn't (as is clear from his UCSF profile page). Yes, I dislike his work. So what? Lots of people, including medically qualified tobacco control experts, dislike his work. That's because he makes claims that the data don't support. Scientists don't like that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you are using Wikipedia servers to defame a living person. Wikipedia has the ability and the responsibility to stop you from doing that. — goethean 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe a comment has to be false before it can be defamatory.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is false to say that Glantz lacks any medical qualifications (an M.D. degree is not the only kind of medical qualification, as any nurse, pharmacist, or public-health researcher could tell you). You've repeated this falsehood several times despite being informed that it's untrue, suggesting a disregard for the truth. You obviously bear substantial malice toward the subject of this falsehood (cf. "Stan the Glans"). I'm not a lawyer, but what you're doing is wrong on ethical if not legal grounds. That's the essence of WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So what medical qualifications does he have, then? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stop this discussion: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but it does seem like I'm being accused of lying and I'd rather like to defend myself, so where should I carry it on?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume it's OK to ask the editors who insist that Glantz has a medical qualification to back up their claims with some kind of source? I mean, I am being accused of lying about this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really--MastCell is citing your word choice in reference to the subject, and you changed the subject. Doesn't matter: it's not for here. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that I'd been OOB with some of the things I said about Glantz, but he's also accusing me of lying by saying that Glantz has no medical qualifications, even though my source for that is Glantz's UCSF profile.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not a single thing that FergusM has said here pertains. Unless NW issues an indefinite block already, here's what I suggest: if Fergus makes one false move ("edit that violates the letter and spirit of our BLP policy one way or another, broadly construed") on that Glantz page or its talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia (our BLP policy applies to all spaces), they are blocked indefinitely (though not infinitely). Fergus, if you don't realize how wildly inappropriate your comments are, and how far off the mark your responses here in this thread, then maybe you should be blocked on the spot. Save your commentary on this person for your blog, or for dinner conversation. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Is it fine to add facts if I can RS them?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as you make sure you know which moves are false and which ones aren't. Be careful with your words and your interpretations. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair one. I've only started editing medical-related articles quite recently and MEDRS is a minefield (and, I suspect, easily abused). I'll double check my sources.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And when you do, don't throw around "no medical qualification" for a WP:BLP, when your source says, "Stanford University, CA, Postdoc, 1975, Cardiology; University of California San Francisco, CA, Postdoc, 1977, Cardiovascular Research; (1992) Fellow, American College of Cardiology; (2005) Elected to Institute of Medicine" etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Postdoctoral research is not a medical qualification, especially when the doctorate is in engineering. Glantz has no medical qualifications.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on that does not matter, here. For BLP's especially, stick to what sources actually say. He has advanced study in cardiology and been recognized in the medical community for related research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

140.200.208.2

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

---

Seven previous blocks listed at User talk:140.200.208.2, most recently for one year, and now again being used for blatant vandalism. Re-block? 82.132.222.244 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• No. The last edit was vandalism, but the ones before, to Glenn Colquhoun and Michael Brecker, were not. Next time please report at WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor trying to get rid of a category by emptying it

Devadatta (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to get rid of Category:Monomyths by emptying it, removing it from articles on the ground that it is fringe. I've reverted him just now at Quetzalcoatl as the Oxford Companion to World Mythology mentions monomyth in connection with him.[61] This sort of mass removal of a category seems disruptive and seems to be based on an editor thinking that because Campbell wrote about it it is fringe and should be removed from everything that Campbell didn't mention. It may be a content dispute but doing it this way seems disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Before I started removing the "monomyth" category from most of the articles, I wrote this on [the category's discussion page]. The real issue at hand is whether the theory (or rather hypothesis) of "monomyth" is an academically accepted one. It's not enough that it's popular or just a theory since there are so many (for instance, it would be wrong to categorise Anunaki, the pyramids, Nazca lines etc as "ancient astronauts", no matter how popular it is. It's quite clear that the monomyth concept is popular and well spread. So how academically accepted and valid is it? (Also, even if it turns out to be that, it must be verified article by article, no carte blanche for all.)

It's not enough to show a scholar/academic or two who supports the idea. There's always someone who will do that, just like Nobel laureates who supports pseudo science like homeopathy, AIDS denial or AGW denial. Accepted really means that a majority supports it (which for instance would mean that most text books at undergraduate level teaches it and most researchers support it). Perhaps the standard for Wikipedia should be more lax, so that a sizable minority of ~20% is enough. And it must be shown article for article. I haven't seen anyone do this. Concerning your examples, I can accept that the scholar who wrote the book you link above accepts the monomyth. However, the examples you had on [myth] didn't amount to more that one other academic. However, there's thousands of them. Nonetheless, I'm interested to see what more you can google up. --Devadatta (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

...Devadatta, thats not how wikipedia works, it is not a scientific journal, its an encylopedia. If the catagory meets WP:NOTABILITY it should probably be included. Much to my chagrin scientific rigor has no place here. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:DEFINING - and the fact that deletion of categories is done at WP:CFD, not through depopulation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to delete the category, in fact, I can add Star Wars and (as I understand it) the game Journey to it since the creators say they have been inspired by Campbells ideas. I believe there are other movies and games as well that should be included (by the same token). Also, I don't understand why Wikipedia shouldn't rely on what a majority of experts say, even regarding the categories. For instance, Nazca lines aren't categorized with "Ancient astronauts" (although it certainly is popular and notable), Witch trials aren't categorized with "Horned god", Neuroticism aren't categorized with "Jungian psychology" etc. It seems to me Wikipedia already works this way (and of course WP should not be a scientific journal or similar). --Devadatta (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the removals seem justified to me. The Quetzalcoatl article doesn't mention "monomyth", and the category should not have been restored without a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarassed, misread my source. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a long time, and I have no desire to address the details of this case. I will simply make the following general points:

1. Per WP:VERIFY, we can't put articles into the monomyth category simply because they fit the monomyth pattern. We can put an article in the category only if the article cites a source that identifies the article's subject as an example of Campbell's monomyth. (Such a source need not be a book by Campbell. A source discussing Campbell's monomyth idea would work.)
2. If the text of an article doesn't even identify the article's subject as an example of the monomyth, then the article should be removed from the category immediately.
3. I don't know how one would determine whether "a majority of experts" (to use Devatta's phrase) supports a myth's inclusion in the monomyth category.I don't think we can appeal (as Devatta does) to "a majority of experts" in this context. There's no way to tell whether most "experts" think a specific story (e.g. the story of Odysseus) belongs in the monomyth category.
4. Any judgment about the monomyth concept's academic respectability must take into account both of the following:

• Leslie Northup's statement that the monomyth idea has little support in the mainstream study of mythology (see Monomyth#Criticism)
• The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, which has an article on the "heroic monomyth" (see Christian mythology#Hero myths)

(Full disclosure: Devadatta asked for my input on this issue.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • If we can use Michael R. Collings he wrote "Students of the conventions—including James Frazier, C. G. Jung, James Joyce, Joseph Campbell, Northrop Frye, Mircea Eliade, Otto Rank, and David A. Leeming—have defined the outlines of the “Hero Monomyth,” the paradigm of literary heroism."[62] which might help find sources. I would argue very strongly against the idea that Campbell has to be mentioned in connection with the concept. And I think there is a misunderstanding of categories here, they are navigation aids and we do not need 'a majority of experts'. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • • Hi Doug. I think you misunderstand my comment. I wasn't saying we needed a majority of experts in order to put an article into the monomyth category. I meant that I didn't understand why Devatta was appealing to the concept of "a majority of experts" in this context, since there's simply no way to know whether most experts think a specific story (e.g. the story of Odysseus) belongs in the monomyth category. I have revised my original comment accordingly. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And I brought this here because the removals seem indiscriminate - especially given that sometimes he would revert 2 a minute. He cannot possibly have been checking his sources. He removed it from Odyssey although sources, including Campbell, link it.[63] [64] This is a behavior issue. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mount Hermon

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

---

Resolved: Done. m.o.p 22:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Mount Hermon article appears to under attack from nationalists (which isn't unusual). Could someone please have a look at it and take the appropriate action, which may involve more than protection ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected by Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 22:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Single purpose editor - Cocoplain and the article on Anna Mae Aquash

Since May of 2012 a single purpose editor, Cocoplain, has been attempting to insert a vigorous POV defense for John Graham, one of the convicted murderers of Anna Mae Aquash.[65] This editor offers no reliable sources and inserts edits which are contrary to the reliable sources that are in the article. A cursory review of this editor's contributions clearly shows their intent. Someone other than myself needs to offer assistance to this editor on the Mighty Wik's NPOV policy. Hammersbach (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

With User:Cocoplain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), then step 1 should be to revise your entry at the user talk-page and remove hostile wording, then append a question asking them about finding reliable sources. There are numerous cases of people acquitted years/decades afterward, and most jurors tend to believe police testimony as if true, totally unaware how many police have lied in police reports and in courtroom testimonies, or planted illegal drugs in the backseat of a patrol car to charge a suspect in the backseat. Perhaps open a thread at "Talk:Anna Mae Aquash" to find sources explaining lack of evidence or falsified evidence. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it is a personal attack

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

---

Resolved

 – Yep, that's a personal attack alright. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A reply made by another user in Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) was described as a "downright bullshit" by an IP user, and I was asked to "not give up my treatment" because the IP user was "worried about my literacy". The user also accused us of making "shameless promotion of Japanese government's propaganda view". Here is the edit: [66]. I'm not sure what to do now, and your comment on this incident would be much appreciated. Thank you -- lssrn45 | negotiate 08:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The crack about literacy and "not giving up your treatment" ranks as a personal attack in my book. I've given the IP a warning message; no further action needed here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! lssrn45 | negotiate 10:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

173.14.48.206

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

---

Continued disruptive editing (the same thing over and over) at Bulgaria national football team. IP has already been blocked before for the same disruptions. IP is also registered to the United States Detroit Comcast Business Communications Llc and I think something more permanent should be done to finally stop this IP's disruptions. Mas y mas (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This is coming off the heels of a 3 month block, preceded by a 1 month block, and an initial 2 week block, all for disruption at the same page. And I see little-to-no useful contributions, just a single-minded effort to disrupt this single article. If this weren't an IP I would have done an indefinite block, but instead I blocked for 6 months. (This IP seems to be a static address belonging to a single person or household so I'm not too concerned about collateral damage, if there is any then the block can be altered or removed.) -- Atama頭 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and OWN violations

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

---

Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Phineas Gage.

See User talk:John#Gage and EEng and User talk:EEng#Query.

Long-term problem: As I see it, EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken ownership of our article on Phineas Gage, an interesting and fairly well known case of 19th-century neurological injury. EEng is affiliated with one of the sources he insists on promoting at the article (hence last year's COIN discussion, after which my understanding was that EEng agreed to back off). EEng has certain very specific ideas about what does and does not belong in the article, and on how it should be written and formatted. Those of us who have tried to improve the article have been sent away with a telling off. I long ago gave up trying to help on the article. User:ChrisGualtieri has persisted (against my advice) and his reward has been to be on the receiving end of this diatribe. I think using language like Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a ***. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here. (and forgive me for reproducing the formatting) is beyond the pale. I tried to discuss this with EEng at his user talk but he does not wish to. I know that User:Tryptofish has been trying to mediate at article talk, but I think this is beyond the power of one admin to solve, hence my bringing it here. I urge you to read the whole section to get a picture of what has been going on for months. It has to stop.

Requested actions: Short-term I think a short block is in order for EEng. Long-term I do not see this issue being solved without a topic ban; previous exhortations have not been successful. My own perception is that Chris would be fine if EEng was not misbehaving, but it may be that his behaviour also merits attention. Interested to see what others think. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that god-awful long COIN thread and I don't see where EEng says he will back off. Can you quote something specific?--v/r - TP 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one of the problems in understanding this matter is the extreme verbosity involved. I admit I can't find it either. Maybe this is what I was thinking of? Certainly I was aware of a period when EEng stepped back from the article and allowed others to edit it without belittling them. But going by Chris's comments on my talk we seem to be back where we were. --John (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, thanks for the !promotion, but I'm actually not "one administrator". While I make no claims about my abilities to single-handedly take care of the dispute, I want to advise strongly against blocking anyone. Yet. It's sufficiently complicated that a block would not prevent anything, maybe just postpone it. Really, this is not a block type of situation. There needs to be more discussion, and then evaluation of who does or does not play nice with what comes out of that discussion. If problems continue after that, then we will be in topic ban territory. What I would welcome now would be more eyes on Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh , sorry Tryptofish, I honestly thought you were an admin. FWIW your commentary in trying to resolve this was more than worthy of adminship. If not a block then I think we would need a topic ban. I still think the prolonged nastiness from EEng is blockworthy. Obviously I agree about the more eyes suggestion. --John (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John, have you looked at whether EEng is right? I havent been following the situation for the last two weeks, and wont have time to catch up until tomorrow, but from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a *** is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. I agree with Tryptofish that the situation calls for more eyes rather than blocks at this stage, but it is more eyes from people who can (and will) read sources that is needed. I saw that this topic went to WP:DRN very recently...? How did that go? I dont see it mentioned in this ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The DRN was closed with the discussion being handed over to me for the time being, and with a recommendation to hand it over to the Mediation Committee if I cannot help. When I look at the comments of the two "John"s here, it seems to me that John places too much of the blame on EEng, and John Vandenberg places too much of the blame on Chris. That's all the more reason not to move too hastily to blocking anyone here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• A block of EEng would do no good, but the problems are in part because EEng works for/with Macmillan and Macmillan's text is the issue. EEng has self-disclosed his identity on his user page as: ".. the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of this version of the article on Phineas Gage." Which self-discloses EEng as Lena, Macmillan's co-author and co-researcher. This was a major part of the COIN discussion. Though the issue is not me "mis-reading" the source, but the source itself being actually wrong. I want this error to be noted because it is often repeated and it is in the "only scholarly book on Phineas Gage".Macmillan quite confidently gave May 20 as the date of death. If Macmillan went to such pains to personally examine the documents, specifically indicating May 20th as the date of death, by all means I expected it to be accurate. This as EEng pointed out was completely false, and I guess the cited source never existed in the first place! Macmillan may make errors, contradict himself, Harlow and other sources, but EEng (as a partner) should not be resorting to abusive claims that I am "mentally impaired", "hopelessly incompetent" or "a ***". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"works with/for Macmillan" - wtf. Once more you sound like you dont understand academic publishing at all. My guess is you do know, but you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig. EEng has a COI with the new material that appeared in one paper. That is all. He does not have a COI with every piece of scholarship by any person he may have copublished a paper with. Tryptofish, you imply that user:John has seriously looked at this issue/topic - I have seen no evidence of that - I have seen evidence to the contrary[Im on a phone atm so cant put together the diffs, but the last COIN discussion is an example of John demonstrating this.] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear then since it seems you did not read the initial post here. 1) User:EEng has a conflict of interest in editing this article. (See the COIN report for details.) This is not ok. 2) User:EEng has become increasingly abusive over the last months. (See the two diffs I supplied.) This is not ok either. 3) There may or may not be a problem with User:ChrisGualtieri; I don't know. 4) Other than that I do not hold any strong opinions about anything related to this matter. It would be great if people commenting here could focus on these problems and how we should solve them. Again, if not a block, I think a topic ban is required but I am certainly open to other suggestions. --John (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever John Vandenberg believes I did or did not imply, let me say one thing very explicitly: there is no basis for administrative action here, and this thread should be closed. Maybe there will be a topic ban down the road, but not yet. There is nothing to be gained by further parsing of COI or anything else here, and I suggest that the focus should turn toward improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's rather a strange comment. Whatever the problems there have been I am fairly sure that everybody here in their own way is (or thinks they are) focused on improving the page. My perception is that there are OWN, COI and NPA violations going on here. Whatever other problems people may think there are I have yet to see these perceptions refuted. It has been brushed under the carpet for months and I don't think continuing to deal with it in that way is going to solve the problem. Constructive suggestions please. --John (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess our differing perceptions are reflected in my opinion that your finding my comment strange is, itself, strange. But I maintain very strongly my opposition to any blocks at this time. And WP:There is no deadline, so the situation is not yet an urgent one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase it this way: Since even Chris does not see value in a block (above), I just don't think that any uninvolved administrator would see a valid reason for a block. My constructive suggestion, and I offer it very sincerely, is for you, John, or for anyone else to please come to User talk:Tryptofish and/or Talk:Phineas Gage, and try to help me mediate the disagreement. It's very do-able, and it's premature to conclude that it is doomed to fail. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I've been watching this thread since it started and I don't think there is going to be action here. As Tryptofish has taken the role of mediator here and is very familiar with the situation, I'm inclined to defer to his judgement on this. I suspect other involved admins would feel the same.--v/r - TP 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. I am only keen that the disruption cease. Two tiny points; I didn't find John Vandenberg's intervention here very helpful and I would remind him that throwaway comments like "you keep digging an ever increasing hole for yourself, with user:John occasionally helping you dig" should best be avoided, or if they are essential they should always be accompanied with diffs. The other point is that sometimes a word from an uninvolved admin can be salutary and I am disappointed that on this occasion no-one saw fit to warn EEng for a stunning piece of rudeness which drove a coach and horses through WP:NPA. Never mind; as long as this stops that is fine with me. --John (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the COI is really relevant here. I see that there is a major conflict between EEng and Chris that stems from a content dispute, and that's best handled via dispute resolution. The ad hominem responses from EEng are not okay and definitely violate WP:NPA no matter what led up to them. If nobody saw fit to warn EEng, consider this a formal warning here from me that whatever frustration EEng may be feeling, calling someone a "hopeless incompetent" in such a manner can lead to a block. Comments like that turn content disputes into something much nastier and we can't let those slide. -- Atama頭 18:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Atama, and I will try to conform with that warning in my own advice to EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Something that I need to add, however: Just as EEng must not call Chris a "hopeless incompetent", Chris should drop the COI arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? I'd like to hear from User:Binksternet on this one as he made quite a compelling case at the COIN report that EEng's conflict of interest was an underlying problem here. Tryptofish, it definitely won't work to make NPA compliance conditional on Chris calling out a problem which seems to me and Binksternet to be a real one. --John (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that either one is conditional on the other, because two wrongs do not make a right. I do believe that they both would be better off doing right, and that it would be better for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the COI of EEng was not limited to the one paper he co-authored, that EEng was clearly focused on the success of his colleague—so much so that EEng should step back from aggressive article ownership and let others work the material. In the current case, with questions raised about the accuracy of the birth and death date, I see that the situation has continued, that EEng is too wrapped up in defending the conclusion made by his colleague. EEng should allow the reader to know that the dates are not firmly established by Macmillan who contradicts previous researchers. Only if a majority of subsequent researchers publish works in agreement with Macmillan will there be a new scholarly consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at this point, the discussion is going around in circles. Some editors think it's a COI, and others do not. I do not. It's a content dispute, with elements of POV, OWN, and civility. Having a POV is not a COI. And none of this is going to be resolved at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Name an editor who thinks EEng does not have a potential COI in editing this article, please. I just reread the COIN discussion. There are variations in opinion on how serious a problem it is, but everybody there and here agrees that the editor is editing in an area where COI could be a problem. As this is widely acknowledged as being one of the issues, any solution which ignores it is unlikely to succeed, in my opinion. --John (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK: Tryptofish, so long as you don't twist the nuances too far. And just above, an uninvolved administrator said that COI is not the main issue here. Please, someone needs to close this discussion thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you really mean that, you are in a minority of one. As I say, there are differences of opinion about how far COI has been a problem, but nobody has seriously argued that it is not a factor. We cannot afford to even imply that EEng's refraining from calling people names when he disagrees with them is in any sense dependent on nobody challenging COI if it rears its head again. --John (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the second time you've said that I implied that dependence, when I didn't. Please, someone close this! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because this is dragging out to long, Therefore I propose A topic ban on EEng for the topic of Phineas Gage due to Inexcusable behavior (calling people cuss words, etc.) Repeatedly. If he did it once or twice but after that he stopped that would be acceptable. But this lasting six months is just Absurd!!!! Happy Attack Dog (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy Attack Dog, I realize that you said this in good faith, but I have got to Oppose at this time, while leaving open the possibility of returning to the issue of a topic ban at a later time. Take a look at my user talk, where EEng's most recent comment was a statement to me that he is sorry for some of his mistakes and is going to try harder. Take a look at Talk:Phineas Gage#WP:BRD, where I've just spent a lot of time trying to mediate the situation, and where my most recent interaction with Chris was to criticize him for not engaging with what I said. Take a look at the now-archived discussion at DRN, where the close concluded that I should try to mediate informally, and that, if that failed, EEng and Chris should be directed to the Mediation Committee. Just before you posted this, I asked for the section to be closed, because ANI isn't going to resolve it. You said, rightly, that this is dragging on for too long, but unfortunately, you just made it drag on longer. If anyone really wants to help, please come to the article talk page and contribute to the discussion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Useless category?

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

---

Hello, first not quiet sure if this is the right place to ask an opinion. If it is not the proper place, please redirect me. I found this new category recently created Category:Polled out from another wikipedia including in this more general category Category:Wikipedias by language. I am not sure what is the use of this polled out from another wikipedia category, but it looks like gathering random articles. Do you think we should speedy delete it? D0kkaebi (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like rubbish to me, but I'd take it to WP:CFD to be sure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and redirection. D0kkaebi (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Email address in edit summary

CLOSED:

Edit summary was revdel by Crisco 1492 (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The last but one edit to Dave Loggins contains someone's personal email address. If appropriate, could an admin censor/delete this? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Need interaction ban

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

---

We're in desperate need of an interaction ban between User:Lightbreather and User:Sue Rangell. Another IBan proposal didn't gain consensus a week ago but we've got a serious problem here. I'm going to focus on Sue Rangell's edits here, but you can see from the last two ANI threads plenty of evidence against Lightbreather as well. I'm not sure how I got involved, both of these users seem to think I'm the go-to admins for their dispute and I frequently get pinged by both of them. I think they are both fine editors. But they clearly cannot get along and their behaviors toward each other are disruptive.

My first taste of this dispute was this ANI thread where Sue accused Lightbreather of being an SPA. I warned Sue that using the term SPA simply as an ad hominem and a perjorative were personal attacks. Sue was repeatedly calling Lightbreather a SPA and a vandal:

• "I am hoping to get more comments here about LB's actions, the POV, vandalism (Whether intentional or unintentional), SPA considerations, WP:CRUSH activity, etc"
• "It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Wikipedia article. Lightbreather has done all of these thing"
• "Lightbreather please stop edit warring. You made controversial POV edits without discussing them. User Anastrophe was reverting your vandalism."

What sparked this thread today was that Sue Rangell followed Lightbreather to the SALW article. Lightbreather makes edits to an article and within a day Sue tweaks them as "POV edits by Lightbreather". A deeper look into this and I see that Sue Rangell has a history of following Lightbreather to articles [67][68][69][70]. I brought the SALW article to Sue's attention today and she turned around and accused me of Harrassment. Sue's behavior violates Wikipedia:WIKISTALKING#Wikihounding. An interaction ban is the only thing that can keep this continuous dispute off ANI for good.--v/r - TP 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Given the dust from the previous ANI has barely settled, that they're back at it already says enough. Blackmane (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Partial support - I have made a second offer to Sue (scroll down to "Sue, please consider this:") since the same counter-proposal six days ago. If she does not agree, is it possible to get a one-way IBAN, since she (X) is the one who follows me (Y) around, reverting my edits (and often other editors' too in the process) and REVTALKing about/at me? Prior to my asking for help back in August, she showed no interest in gun-control related articles. I do not want to be effectively banned from them as a result of a dual IBan. I just want to be able to edit without her harassing me. There are plenty of other editors who watch those articles. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Another waste of time Though as I said in the last ANI, I would support a mutual voluntary topic ban on gun related articles. I would also support the simple and common sense solution of not talking to each other on the talk pages and allowing other editors of those articles to file any necessary ANIs. Reject any "one-way IBAN". Lightbreather has ownership issues when it comes to gun control. I do not appreciate being painted as some sort of stalker. The last time I reverted one of her edits was over 3 weeks ago [71]. Since when is a single edit considered Wikihounding? Her edit triggered a notification, and so I went and checked it out. I do not follow lightbreather's contribs and edit them. I just looked at her recent edits since, and she has made something like 500 edits since I last interacted with her, and on various articles, none of which have been followed by me at all. On the other hand, apparently if I make a single edit that Lightbreather doesn't like, I get threatened by TParis. Who is doing the Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding here? I have never brought TParis into any disagreement I may have had with Lightbreather. All of this is generated by her. Everytime I make an edit that Lightbreather doesn't like, she goes to TParis. TParis is not neutral in this matter, and has phrased this ANI in a way that makes me look like some sort of Wikistalker. I encourage others to take a look at the other ANIs, this is something like the 5th time Lightbreather has gotten me pulled in here over nothing. I ask again, who is harrassing who? This has become ridiculous. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here are the relevant ANIs, they speak for themselves. I encourage folks to review them before making a decision.

[72]

[73]

[74]

--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sue, please let's bury the hatchet. Here is my offer to you, which I am copying from here. I will voluntarily avoid articles that fall under the WikiProjects you belong to, which appear to be: Computer Security, Sociology, Universities, if you will voluntarily avoid articles under WikiProjects that I belong to, which are: Firearms, Journalism, Law, and Politics. (Actually, you only need to avoid articles in Law and Politics that cover Firearms or Journalism.) If one of us accidentally edits on another's turf, the other will AGF and give a friendly warning. Is that agreeable to you? Lightbreather (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Partial oppose I have some experience with both editors at Robert Spitzer (political scientist). Lightbreather did an excellent job, in my view, of dealing with POV and BLP issues. So, I don't think there should be an interaction ban imposed on Lightbreather. Sue Rangell is also a good editor I would like to see her and Lightbreather come to and stick with voluntary agreement on how to work together. Wikipedia would be better off with them behaving cooperatively than with a mutual iban that limits their work here. @Sue Rangell, Lightbreather wants to reach a voluntary agreement, please work with her and stick to it. I am One of Many (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This would be the third ANI thread that resulted in asking these two to find a way to cooperate. See the previous two linked above.--v/r - TP 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction ban, support strong hint both editors should leave TParis out of any future conflicts which may arise. NE Ent 04:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NE Ent. To be clear, Sue wrote "Everytime I make an edit that Lightbreather doesn't like, she goes to TParis," (emphasis mine). I pinged him once about three weeks ago when Sue labeled me an SPA (after first trying to resolve the problem myself) because he had told her before - without prompting from me - that doing this was a personal attack; and once again two days ago when she followed me to a page, reverted my work, and accused me of being disruptive. That's two times - and appropriate times, IMO - not "every" time. Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad TParis is the go-to guy. It's probably cause he's so damn goodlooking. It's a pity it's too late to add them to the ArbCom case, I guess. Both editors are possibly too zealous for these hotly contested topics. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly every editor must have admins they admire. I became a fan of TP when he wrote (when SR tried to get me banned for removing talk page comments accusing me of vandalism): "I'd oppose a topic ban without some serious evidence. I see it too often that editors pile on here saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd.... please provide evidence of actual disruption and not anecdotal evidence that equates to 'she makes me mad.'" Also, "Sue's comment were appropriately redacted. So I think this thread can be closed unless someone wants to discuss Sue's behavior further." And, "Calling someone a WP:SPA is a personal attack when the title is used as a pejorative." Lightbreather (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:IPadPerson

IPadPerson has a history of using foul language and screaming through edit summaries. I've previously warned him/her that edit summaries like this and this are inappropriate (see here). However, his/her strong temper has persisted and since that warning, we've seem edit summaries such as "Stop changing shit without a reason why", "What the hell was that there for", "How many got damn times have you been told about the SAME DAMN THING!?"

Additionally, he/she refers to good faith edits like this as "disruptive editing" and although referring to this as a good faith edit, proceeded to warn the user on their talk page with not even a general warning, but an "only warning."

It seems the efforts so far to control his/her temper haven't worked, so perhaps a temporary block will. Gloss • talk 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While still a bit bristly, the recent edit summaries have calmed down a lot relative to the ones pre-warning. I'd give the editor a bit more time - perhaps they'd like to weigh in here, as well. m.o.p 17:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile, i.e. this one from Feb 1st. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was before the user received a warning. m.o.p 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad world we live in where one has to be told that that sort of thing is unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they are not personal attacks.… (and I am doubtful about even that) Epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User has quite a disruptive history. They reported me to AIV as a "vandalism only account" for this revert. I have also seen them frequently abuse Twinkle and give multiple users either "final" or "only" warnings, just for reverting them. STATic message me! 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note these edits summaries from his IP address. Although before the warnings, this serves as a further example of the user's unhealthy temper, lashing out through edit summaries. [75] Gloss • talk 20:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment I am not very experienced but I think this user just needs to learn more about civil behavior and assuming good faith, maybe a little time and a warning will work, but if it does not, maybe a block.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Warnings don't seem to be working. The user ignores all warnings. And the edit summaries have continued, with a personal attacks this time. "You ain't smart enough to know that it don't belong nowhere in the article" Still not a problem? Gloss • talk 17:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that even their user page reflects their temper. It comes across as very hostile and uncivil in my opinion. Kap 7 (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input here. This doesn't seem like a safe situation to let slip into the archives of ANI. Gloss • talk 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a civility warning should be in order. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another warning? They've had multiple editors warn them before, if you take a look at their talk page. And after the recent personal attack, (linked a few comments above), I don't see how a block isn't in order here. Gloss • talk 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to the editor, the latest remark was after reverting a disruptive IP multiple times. It's not quite an unwarranted attack. I can leave them a message, but this isn't something worth blocking over. m.o.p 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've looked into the actual edits made by the IP but the edits were not in any way disruptive. They all seemed to be in good faith and well-intended. Another editor even questioned IPadPerson's warning on the IP's page here. Gloss • talk 00:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

DerreckTapp (talk · contribs) who appeared to be previously editing as Tappindustries (talk · contribs) diff Hello Jim, Do you really want a lawsuit on your hands for administering false representation of a biography of a living persons.... Jim1138 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see: (User creation log); 07:57 . . User account Tappindustries (talk | contribs) was created and should probably be blocked too, if only for the disruptive editing on the Brian L. page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) ‎

Given the incredibly high likelihood that the accounts represent the same person, I've blocked them both. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

They have been retired to spend more time with their lawyers, then...?  ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User was blanking Brian Litchenberg claiming fraudulent content, later only claiming that the Vanity Fair was fraudulent. Unwilling to provide source. Jim1138 (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious legal threat, so I went ahead and blocked him per NLT (he also had tried to delete this ANI section, heh.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mauriliorodriguez (talk · contribs) has also made the same kind of edits to the article. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. There was also that blatant copyvio at about the same time _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност

I don't know where to report this since this classifies under several categories: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, etc. The user was recently involved in a edit war on Serbs article for which he was reported and which resulted in that page to be fully protected [76]

Now this user is trying to transfer that conflict (with which BTW I had nothing to do with) and that content dispute on the article Croats, making non-consensus and non-discussed changes and calling the previous (might I add sourced information) as biased trash [77]. I reverted this edit and made him aware that I know about his content dispute on another article and warned him not to transfer that dispute on this article. Then few hours later he again introduces his changes again calling the content "trash" and furthermore making an extremely rude personal attack against me with a baseless sockpuppetry accusation [78]. IMO this definitely falls under the jurisdiction of the WP:ARBMAC. Shokatz (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have had some concerns about Правичност's editing for a while (I'm here because Shokatz notified Правичност, whose talkpage is on my watchlist).

Interestingly, Правичност tends to edit similar pages to PANONIAN - who left after being blocked and topic-banned. Правичност seems to edit-war similar content into those pages. Правичност's account was created shortly after PANONIAN "retired", and the two both have an unfortunate habit of making false accusations of sockpuppetry by adversaries. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sokac 121 is the reason why article Serbs is under protection 4th time. I apologize to Shokatz that i mistaken him for Sokac121, because i see his English language knowledge is way better than the other user`s English (a google translate version). But i am surprised i got reported here :) ... i am not transferring anything, the Croats article holds biased numbers and unnoficial datas next to the official datas, a real madness, reliable is something i would not call this article. Sokac121 a constant vandal and agressor on Serbs article (specifical goal - figures) seems to use more than one account, i saw similar edit`s and same way of English knowledge expressing in some cases by editor`s under different IP. I may be wrong about that, but i am certainly not wrong, that this user is the reason these constant disputes start over one and same thing, on one hand he disagrees and edit warres and fights over figures and soruces on article Serbs and on the othe rhand he uses weird questionable and primarily unofficial sources to pump up figures on article Croats, making them alot more larger than in reality.. he has double standards and i dont aproove such behaviour and vandalism. PANONIAN? I dont know who is panonian, i started using wikipedia perhaps 1 year ago or less and this is my only account, your detective intuition seems to have fooled you Bobrayner :) (Правичност (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC))

If you are interested in discussing the content you consider contentious, then bring it to talk page first, do not edit-war and delete what you don't like and call it trash, that is not a valid reason for anything. And accusing others of being sockpuppets without proof doesn't help either, in fact it is a blatant WP:PA. Also your recent edit on my talk page [79] is again the same behavior with which I believe you came to the article in question. You need to calm down a bit. Shokatz (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz, i already posted my ideas on Croats talk page, but nobody seemed to have been interested to be involved in such discussions. The "edit" - post on your talk page was just to notify you, you have been mentioned and replied to on this page by me. And about Sokac121, i dont really care what he has to say through google translate beneath this message of mine. I already posted my opinion about him and what i said can be seen by his edit history on Serbs talk page; simply pure hater and vandal or pusher. Regards (Правичност (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

User:Правичност is today invaded me and User:Jingiby , (see here [80]) Constantly offends other colleagues who disagree with him. Terribly is what doing--Sokac121 (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also realized that Правичност has a strange behaviour. Edit-warring, abusing other editors, refusing to accept the rules here, etc. Jingiby (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't remember if I've had any direct interactions with this user, rendering me involved - it's possible. In any case, if nobody takes this up here, you should appeal for WP:ARBMAC enforcement at WP:AE instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Slater

IP 120.146.138.140 is claiming to be the subject of this article and is issuing legal threats via the edit summary. I initially reverted the IP's edits but after examining the quality references given I have undone my own edits until the issue is resolved. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the content involved some serious negative comment on a WP:BLP, which was not well supported by sources. If the IP really was the subject, he had reason to be upset, although WP:NLT still applies, of course. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I've RevDel'd the edit summary as it had a phone number in it. But it's content was "This is Michael Slater and I have removed this section because it is incorrect and totally misleading. If I can't get control of this I will have to get legal advice. You can call me ..." The IP has been told to follow the advice at WP:Contact us - Subjects and not to make legal threats so no more action needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also Fraggle81 you handled it exactly right, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This may be a case of WP:DOLT, but the language here that really concerns me is where the subject insists that he needs to "control" the article, which is never going to happen. I'll leave a message to try to assure the subject that we don't want to defame him and one of our biggest priorities on Wikipedia is to not necessarily harm our article subjects with unsubstantiated negative information, and that we take such issues seriously. -- Atama頭 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass removing of links to transfermarkt

User Cloudz679 removes a lot of lins and references to transfermarkt profile of football players. Is this action agreed with someone? This must be discussed at least with members of wikiproject football and other not affiliated editors. WHO decided what transfermarkt is not reliable source? It′s a bullshit. Tranfermarkt it′s reliable source, and especially in case for footballers from Eastern and south-eastern small European countries it′s a much better source than any other local one. For example, i can with certitude that transfermarkt helped me in tens of cases to fill in and correct transfers history for Moldovan footballers. I do not care this is his decision or agreed with somebody, i will use further transfermarkt, because in a lot of cases i can′t find more reliable source. I will not notify user on his talk page. I will not try to convince you in correctness of my words. Enwiki is not my home project. I just announced you about an unconstructive (IMO) mass action. Regards. XXN (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Transfermarkt was determined not to be a reliable source following several discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard; the final determination was here, and further confirmed at this discussion. Removal of Transfermarkt is simply following that consensus, as it has been determined it should not be used here. Accordingly, I would advise you to reconsider your statement that "I do not care...I will further use it", as refusal to follow consensus here could be taken as being disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also, I see you made no attempt to discuss this with Cloudz679 before bringing this here, and also that you did not notify Cloudz679 of this discussion as is required, so I've notified him on your behalf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 10#Template:Transfermarkt. GiantSnowman 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally to the above, I used edit summaries consistently throughout my removal of the links, and provided additional information regarding this on my talk page, in the Transfermarkt section. I have been working transparently on a community-agreed action. XXN please use edit summaries, in particular when reverting the actions of others, so we may work together. If no reliable sources have discussed a particular subject, there may be a case for deletion of such articles. Thanks, C679 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Paranoid, offensive subject line

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

---

I deleted a couple of sections in a C-level article basic income, that was referenced only to a blog, and had poor encyclopedic style. The article had the 'multiple issues' and these sections seemed to be the issue, so I tidied it up as best I could and deleted the tags.

However, an editor is revert warring it back in. The most recent subject line they used was:

undoing subversive vandalism by user: GliderMaven . Source is concise. The problems of guaranteed income are logical ones. Deleted text warns specifically about the subversiveness being inflicted here[81]

I don't care how logical the editor thinks it is if it's not the referenced opinion of a recognized expert/author, and there's references to prove it. Logic depends on axioms, and you can prove anything if you choose the axioms. That's partly why Wikipedia's position is that it has to be referenced.

Anyway, that aside is it wrong that I should find this subject line rather offensive?

GliderMaven (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean edit summary. I've given him a warning. He also needs to learn about reliable sources it seems. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that page is a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims. It needs a good clean-out, but it looks like there are some ownership issues that might make that more fun than it needs to be. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

At issue is basic income, the topic of the page. There is widespread confusion with guaranteed income, and so a need to distinguish the difference. There is also an obvious need for a proposed benefits section. The reference is not that important, but is the best written and clear argument that I have found, and so arguably high quality irrespective of the publishing platform. The summary on the page is concise and describes the single most essential element on the page: Proposed benefits of basic income. It is certainly a good faith opinion that such a deletion is vandalism. Whether their misunderstanding is in good faith or not, his deletions are shameful just because they are wrong. This is a case where you should allow the content experts, without bias towards publication sources, the willingness to contribute to wikipedia in an unpoisoned environment.

You should not ask what administrative rule may I invoke to pervert truth, but look at a page that is being stripped of its core content, and left with only the arguments against the concept, and recognize that truth is being perverted. If the truth abuse is in good faith, it remains shameful stupidity. Content can no doubt be improved, but editors should make some attempt at improvement instead of deleting core elements. Shameful stupidity in mass deletions poisons any effort to improve the page because shameful stupidity is indecipherable from political bias intent on vandalizing the page.

"is it wrong that I should find this subject line rather offensive" -- If you don't see how your actions are vandalism, then I may not see how the reference is low quality. So invoking criteria for reverting edits may be contentious. The page is better with content of, in your opinion, "poor encyclopedic style", than with no content. Perhaps you can contribute constructively to this page, but if not, do something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not really how it works. If content is removed because it's unreferenced, and this shifts the tone of the article away from neutrality, the focus is on restoring the neutrality, sure - but unless the intention was to remove the content because the editor disagreed with it, and the lack of references was an excuse, it's not a user problem - it's a content problem. On the other hand, a user saying "I don't need to follow the verifiability policy until you make the content how I like it" is most definitely a user problem. I'm sensing a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality coming from you, Godspiral, and I would encourage you to step back and evaluate whether your intentions are to enforce verifiability or truth. If the former, come up with better sources. If the latter, you should probably focus on topics you have less of a strong opinion about. Ironholds (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The content has been there about 1 year. Basic income, much like economics, is not a discipline where empirical results are determinitive, and unlike economics, there are few empirical results. Basic income is philosophy. Philosophy can always be attacked on verifiability. The quality of philosophy does not depend on such attacks. I don't see anything wrong with the source. It is both short and readable, but regardless, the importance is the arguments. A verifiability attack can be abusive. It is a subjective rule. Not "being allowed" to describe the arguments (proposed benefits) for basic income is a necessarily blatant abuse because it makes the page worthless and non-communicative of its title topic. Its content that had been refined by several editors until the recent page destruction. A page destruction committed without any feedback to the talk page, presumably no qualifications, to content that had a wide consensus as to the proposed benefits list, and essentially the core content of the page.

"enforce verifiability or truth" -- "You people", in abusing verifiability interpretations, possibly on subject matter you don't understand, make a very high effort task of summarizing these arguments, much more difficult and not worth implementing, if encyclopedic style nazis can claim its imperfect without any effort of their own, or consideration for editor (content experts) consensus. A more constructive approach would be to question the content in the talk page more specifically than the unsupportable abuse of "a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims". Its important that those who don't care enough to contribute, not destroy pages, on specious and unsupportable grounds. Admins should be aware of these potential abuses, and their ability to detect a content hosting platform, is not definitive in assessing the quality of the reference, and so unless they are willing to make the effort to understand or improve the content, should not let pages be destroyed. Put some "this needs improvement" sticker on the section, then let people improve it, instead of supporting what is objectively vandalism. Godspiral (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proof that this is a defacement attack by some injecting their personal view is what is left on the page and "claimed properties section. The Costs section should stay, but it is poorly written and unsupported with text. Is the BIEN organization an approved government funded source of information? Can that not be attacked the same as naturalfinance.net? The disincentive to work section only makes sense as a rebuttal to proposed benefits. IT IS ENTIRELY UNREFERENCED, and a naive criticism addressed by many writters. The supposed references are to authors dismissive of the argument. The Reciprocity section is a stub politely left behind after someone attempted to explain it, and then rebut it. The criticism and rebuttal would be better referenced by a blog source as it would actually present argument, rebuttal and assumptions instead of hiding them behind "a full text unavailable reference".

Proof of vandalism and Personal view injection is what was left behind is only criticism, poorly written, not verifiable or even less verifiable than what was taken out. Its furthermore content that is less essential to the page. GliderMaven is necessarily biased in removing it, Lankiveil is necessarily biased in calling the best referenced and most essential content "a cesspit of advocacy and very poorly referenced contentious claims", and unilaterally declaring the vandalism to be a good faith edit, while leaving the comparatively weaker content in. I would recommend both users be banned, as the alternative of only government funded sources of information being acceptable wikipedia content references for philosophy topics inconsistent with entrenched political talking points is necessarily a vector of state sponsored attack against those philosophies. Both of these users are deliberately abusing their opinion to destroy the page's usefulness based on this attack vector. Not banning these users is an act of support by the wikipedia community for politically biased (and potentially motivated) vandalism of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"encyclopedic style nazis"? Calling for users to be banned and if we don't ban them we are supporting vandalism? A ban may be in order here, I agree, as so far I cannot see Godspiral as a constructive editor who will contribute to the project. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so? Such a denial would be something a nazi would make.

My eyes glazed over while reading the silly accusations in your post so maybe I missed something but pretty much any section which is called "Supposed deficiencies" is just begging for attention. When the last sentence is "Some speculate that misunderstanding basic income and guaranteed income as essentially similar concepts may be an intentional misunderstanding, defensively positing that if basic income can be misunderstood as something with major flaws, then it can be forever avoided", well the section is just begging for at least partial deletion. In other words, there's a reason the section you refer to was single out, and it's not for the conspiracy reasons you gave. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a good argument for partial deletion of the section distinguishing basic income vs. guaranteed income. Its thought provoking enough (why are poor arguments advanced in this world?) that I would not delete it, but given this controversy, it may be. That there is a good argument to support deleting part of the content, does not justify deleting the much more important section on proposed benefits.

" Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so?" No, it is possibly that someone is maliciously etc. That is not what is happening in this article. It's simple: if there are no reliable sources, the content can be challenged and that's what happened. "Such a denial would be something a nazi would make." No, it is not. One more nazi comparison and you're blocked. And don't give me no crap about politically motivated editors or something like that: I wrote Basic income in the Netherlands and I'm a leftie like you wouldn't believe. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. This morning (UTC), Dougweller asked my opinion about blocking Godspiral for personal attacks, after having warned them on their page. I was all for assuming good faith and waiting at that point, since the user seemed unfamiliar with the local culture, and might not yet have read the NPA warning on their page. But now, having waited, I see Godspiral complementing his accusations of vandalism with further egregious assumptions of bad faith, as well as calling Dougweller a nazi in a cutely deniable way. ("Are you denying the possibility of maliciously vandalizing wikipedia pages while claiming rule authority to do so? Such a denial would be something a nazi would make.") That's quite enough. Blocked for 48 hours, longer next time. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

• I realize that in the post just above Drmies gave Godspiral "one more" chance, and Godspiral did nothing after the warning. However, I endorse Bishonen's block. If it hadn't been for Drmies's warning, I would have blocked them. Drmies was being generous in giving Godspiral a final warning - the block was richly deserved.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Being a true liberal (in the US sense, that is) I'm also a softie and believe in the power of education, that the truth will set us free. I have no problem with the block, of course: there is of necessity considerable leeway in what are essentially civility blocks, and the severity of the infraction and the pain/disruption caused by it will be measured differently by different admins. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

[Bishzilla puts her dukes up.] You wanna piece of me, Drmies? bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

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

Action needed on repeat copyvio infringer

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

---

Resolved

User:Masum Ibn Musa was warned by MadManBot on 1st January 2014 about copying from external websites. The editor ignored the warning, and continued adding WP:COPYPASTE copyvios. On 8 February 2014 I requested a WP:CCI investigation into their edits, which was accepted. The editor responded by blanking both the CCI notice and the MadManBot warning four days later. They have now continued to create new articles incorporating material copied (with attribution but without quotation) from other websites; thirteen articles about Kabaddi players each copying two sentences from this source. (Examples: Juni Chakma, Arzana Akhter Baby.) I am therefore requesting an indef block of the editor to prevent further copyvio additions, until such a time as the editor is willing to discuss the issue and/or stop adding copy-pasted material. The editor has previously been blocked on Commons for copyvio issues.

(Not using the editor's username in the subject line because it's apparently their real name. I will notify them of this thread momentarily.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The title of this section when I came to it was either meant ironically by D1000, or someone added PAs about D1000 to it, but either way it doesn't seem necessary to be there, so I've changed it, leaving an anchor to catch any links. BMK (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a competence issue with copyright, given this user's past problems on Commons. Maybe a block until they promise not to do it again is the best way forward? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

I have now blocked Masum Ibn Musa for one month, and removed some more c&p phrases from Arzana Akhter Baby. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

IP hopper attacking an editor

An IP is using talk pages to tell the world about some of the evil editors here. It's pretty low level, but it is irritating and I'm concerned that it may eventually persuade the named editors to leave. After a break, the IP has returned to User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777 (see its recent history). The IP reported me to WP:AN six weeks ago (WP:AN permalink), and some IP ranges were blocked. I have tried to communicate here and here and here (and notified here).

Would someone please remove the recent comments from User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777 and suggest a remedy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps add a notification link to here? I did not want to add anything to that talk without removing the other stuff, but twice is enough. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked, it'd be nice to know who did the rangeblock and its extent, since they appear to be on a highly dynamic IP. They also appear to be highly obnoxious. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the rangeblocks were by User:Someguy1221 (who closed the AN discussion mentioned above). I'm not sure, but perhaps there were five /16: 124.148.0.0/16 + 124.149.0.0/16 + 124.168.0.0/16 + 124.170.0.0/16 + 124.171.0.0/16. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of /16 blocks: I'll have a look at the possibilities once I've had some caffeine and feel smarter. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 124.168.0.0/18 for a week, we'll see if any leak around the block. I've watchlisted some of the pages they've frequented. Let me know if they pop up again. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

One leaker, now blocked, not enough to do a rangeblock at this point. Acroterion (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! As you know, there is an outstanding problem with a restored personal attack which I have just commented on, but that can be handled in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Androoox

Please can some fresh eyes take a look at Androoox (talk · contribs)?

This is an editor who I blocked for doing an end-run around a CFD process, and who seems to be in battleground mode. See User_talk:Androoox#Admin_User:BrownHairedGirl_2014-02-12_Regions_of_Saudi_Arabia_and_user_block_incident (permalink).

All the other editors who have commented so far have urged restraint on Androoox, but to no avail. (I think that about 4 have commented to date). Androoox has gone beyond alleging vandalism, and has now twice accused other editors of libel: [82], [83]. I warned Androoox that these could be interpreted as legal threats (see the discussion), but the message doesn't seem to have been fully understood.

So far as I can see, Androoox's primary focus is Wikidata, so zie may be unfamiliar with how things work on en:wp. I also wonder whether English is this editor's first language.

Whatever is going on, my continued involvement is not helping, so I don't want to respond any further. It would be great if some uninvolved editors were able to try to defuse the situation. Androoox is clearly a committed contributor, but it is not helpful for their frustration to be expressed in the current style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

1) "This is an editor who I blocked for doing an end-run around a CFD process" - This is not true! That is the core of the issue. You claim stuff that is not true. You asked me to stop and I did stop - even before. I also was not working around CFD, since I had no interest in Renaming, Merging or Deletion of a category at the time I changed the category for the regions of Saudi Arabia from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia to Category:Regions of Saudi Arabia. You violated WP:NOPUNISH. There was nothing to prevent, since I did not go on with category changing of the region articles at all. Also, you claimed there were dozens dozens of articles affected, but there are only thirteen regions and two overview articles that fall into the region-category. And I was about to reply as shown to you, but boom you blocked me. It would be great if any admin could show me how this block was justified. Androoox (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

2) Furthermore: Quantities do not make up for quality. See what User:Hasteur wrote and check the facts. This user claimed things that BHG herself had not claimed. Androoox (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be a language problem here. Androoox now says they had "had no interest in Renaming, Merging or Deletion of a category". However, removing all the pages from one category and placing them in another category amounts to renaming, and since categories cannot be moved, that is how we rename them. If, after removing the CFD/S tag from Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia[84], Androoox's intention was to retain both categories, that should have been explained in WP:CFD/S and in the edit summary, but neither was done. However, as Androoox pointed out to me after the block[85], they had already begun depopulating the category example even before the CFD/S tag was removed from the category.[86]

The block was preventative, because Androoox continued to edit having been warned to stop and to undo what they had done. Once I had rolled back the changes, I offered to lift the block "as soon as commit to stop implementing your withdrawn proposal".[87] That was only 25 minutes after the block had been placed[88]. I repeated the offer twice[89][90], but Androoox chose not to take that offer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PS This all appears to originate from a discussion on Wikidata between Androoox and Ladsgroup (talk · contribs) (who signs on wikidata as "Amir"). Androoox had raised the issue with Ladsgroup on Wikidata on 5 February[91], which was presumably what prompted Ladsgroup to make a bot request on en:wp on 7 Feb[92]. Note that the discussion on Wikidata was about moving the whole category, not splitting it, and that after the bot request was rejected by User:Hasteur[93], Androoox proceeded to request speedy renaming at WP:CFD/S [94][95].

I don't know anything about how decision-making procedures work on Wikidata, but these two Wikidata editors appear to be expect a process rather different to how things work on en:wp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi; Androox is supsected of being a sock of the banned Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT I request a indefinite block of Anderooox for using the term libelous in these diffs: [96] [97][98]. My commentary may have been misinformed or detrimental to Anderooox's position, but leveling a charge of libel without meeting the very strict definition of the term as defined here on wikipedia is a legal threat as it is designed to chill discussion of the issue. Per the above mentioned guideline until Anderooox recants their statement and affirmatively rejects that they are seeing legal remedies, the expected result is clear, they must remain blocked. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Anderooox failed to obey the big orange bar on this page which says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have checked my user talk page and can find zero notification from Anderooox in over 9 hours since they mentioned my name via the user mention process. It is my understanding that using a user mention (triggering the mention box) does not fufil the requirements of the orange bar. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He clearly hasn't a clue what libel is. People with linguistic problems with English often are missing that clue. He's not trying to chill discussion - he simply believes that your statements/stated assumptions about him are incorrect, and so much so that he's offended. He shouldn't be throwing "libel" around, but I see no intent to chill, just to tell you to stop offending him. Now, the fact that he's actually fecking up badly and you called him on it is another story - so, since the truth is an absolute defense to libel, what's the issue anyway? DP 16:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• @User:DangerousPanda - what in your opinion is the right term for written publication of a false claim that harms the reputation of an editor. The false claim is here. The claim that I reverted a revert with respect to the regions of Saudi Arabia lacks evidence. FTR, when I wrote "libel" I had not at all prosecution in court in mind. "Murder" is also a legal term, but it is not only a legal term. Is libel different?
• @User:BrownHairedGirl - where is the evidence that I would revert your revert? If you cannot show that, than your claim that I was blocked to prevent that I would change the categories again, is not backed by evidence. You asked "STOP" and I did obey. Nonetheless, you blocked me. You argue that my first edits when returning to editing have not been, to revert my former edits. So, you blocked me for not undoing with the first edits. Which policy allows you to do this? Androoox (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of "libel" is a legal term, and should only be used as such. As I said, you're a non-identifiable person, and libel cannot ever apply. It's use obviously comes close to violating WP:NLT. You could say "it affects my Wikipedia reputation", but realistically, you actually WERE doing what you were accused of - so you cannot claim that it was misrepresenting your actions when you were actually doing the infraction DP 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DP, you see, the libel worked and now you are engaging too. Now you claim I did what Hasteur said. But I did not. There was no reversion of a revert. You still didn't give another word that could be used instead. So, people can engage in libel, but targets of the libel are not allowed to name it as such? Androoox (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from non-administrator) @DangerousPanda: could you please clarify what, "People with linguistic problems with English often are missing that clue." followed by, "He's not trying to chill discussion..." mean? What is a 'linguistic problem with English'? Is 'chill discussion' a formal term in the English language? To be honest, I'm having difficulty in trying to comprehend what your point is. It reads as both an attack and a defence of Androoox - and English is my first language. Without going into further details in parsing your entire comment (equally abstract vernacular shorthand), all I can say on the matter is that it is one of the most convoluted pieces of the vernacular I've come across for some time. If you know you are discussing someone whose first language isn't English knowing they will be reading your comments, I suspect it would be far more effective to use clear English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple English: people for whom English is a second language often misuse the word "libel" to mean something else (see my comment above). I believe that was Androoox's problem. However, because he actually was doing what he was accused of, he cannot claim libel (or any other word) anyway DP 19:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You spread libel too if you claim I reverted a revert. Or if you claim, I cannot claim libel, because there was none - rendering me as someone who made a false claim. FTR: I am not interested in a law suit. Androoox (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate my assertion that Androoox has gone well beyond the NLT prohibition when using "libel" here to get other editors involved and further accusing other editors of libel. I call for an indefinite block per WP:NLT until Androoox agrees to strike every last claim of libel. Regardless if they are not interested in suing, the use has the effect of chilling discussion which is why we have NLT. Anderooox could have used the terms "incorrect" or "lies" (which have been disproven through an independent analysis of the actions) but using the specifically protected term is a express ticket to Block-ville. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was prepared to accept Androoox's assurance that he did not intend legal action, but hoped that they would also refrain from using that term again, and strike or amend his previous comments. Sadly, Androoox has not stopped using the term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kusurija

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

---

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm writing it in right section (if not, please accept my apologies), but there's a problem with user:Kusurija. He deliberately changed my discussion posts two times, completely changing the meaning to opposite ([99] and [100]). Can he be stopped to doing so? --Silesianus (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non admin comment)Another editor and I have both left warnings on their talk page. If they do that again, I recommend that you either post here or to an admin and they will be swiftly blocked. Blackmane (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The editor appears to have been warned here and here. Has it taken place again since the warning? If not, I would say that these strong warnings will suffice, and continuation of the behaviour post-warning would be sufficient enough to warrant action from an admin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just updating, Kusurija has [101] for changing your comments. So I'll be closing this. Blackmane (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:HARASS by User:Maurice07

I have tried to assume good faith, but this is getting a little annoying. Maurice07 (talk · contribs), who has an userbox on his user page saying "This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide" (clearly showing his anti-Armenian sentiment), has been voting oppose in almost all of my move requests lately, some of them with obvious absurd comments:

• Armenian surnames (15 Feb 2014)
• Sergey Lavrov (24 Jan 2014)
• Classical Armenian orthography (23 Dec 2013)

One interesting pattern is that he is always the first user to vote. I'm getting a sense of being harassed by this user. By the way, he has a very impressive blocking record and has been warned in Jan 2013 for his editing related to Armenia, Azerbaijan. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have repeatedly clashed with Maurice about Template:Largest cities in Turkey in which Maurice was inserting incorrect information. It more or less ended with a (denied) request to the Edit Warring Board ([102]), a clear attempt to silence an opponent. The Banner talk 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you be annoyed User:Yerevantsi? Is that voting forbidden? Yes, I reject so-called Armenian genocide, it's my personal opinion. Nevertheless,i didn't any change in the article of the Armenian Genocide so far. Hımmm, What do you think about other support voting?

• Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915 (9 January 2014)
• Akhtala Monastery (18 January 2014)

Also, I have voted in many move requests!!

• World Heritage Sites in Germany
• Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević
• Heliopolis Palace
• Kosovo

and more than.. In short,here there is no any wantonness against you or being armenian. Maurice07 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is clearly targeted on me. Every request move by me is almost always being voted by you. Coincidence? I find it hard to believe your sudden urge to vote on requested moves related to Armenia, even if two of your votes were "support". Someone who denies the Armenian Genocide and doesn't edit Armenian articles votes absurdly in my requested moves is kind of worrying, as evident by the comment you left on Armenian surnames. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any prohibition on this issue? As I stated above, it is no coincidence but I just don't vote for your requests moves. You don't like this situation because, it's contrary to your interests. Am I wrong? Currently, Sergey Lavrov was not accepted by other users!! Also, what do you say about ur vote request move for article Baklava. [103] Your comment "ridiculous nationalism "! If moves had it been requested by another user,my votes would be the same again. I have no conflict with you. Maurice07 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Unresponsive and uncooperative fringe editor

GreatTruth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GreatTruth123 is a conspiracy theorist who keeps altering articles such as Adam Weishaupt and Illuminati to reflect the belief that Weishaupt was creating a new religion ([104], [105]), that the group was monolithic and not "a name given to several groups, both real and fictitious; and that of Weishaupt's group was merely the beginning. He has been changing the descriptions of the Weishaupt's Illuminati from an NPOV description to sensationalist claims ([106]). He has made some rather nonsensical edits apparently connecting Weishaupt's founding of the Illuminati to the demon Bael ([107]), and overemphasized the word "conspiratorial" with overemphasis ([108]).

He has repeatedly removed "Order of" before "Order of Illuminati" in reference to Weishaupt's Illuminati, despite constant reverts, and has not attempted any discussion on the matter ([109], [110]). This is often combined with his attempts to insert the word "conspiratorial" in places where it doesn't need to be ([111]).

And while I'm not going to out him, I will say that if it weren't for WP:OUTING, I'd have plenty more proof that that's why he's doing those edits.

"Why hasn't anyone discussed this with him." His page is full of warnings, but he has chosen to ignore them.

"Oh, but he doesn't seem to be aware of talk pages, or that he's getting messages." Well, tough for him. He's had the opportunity to receive the messages, but he has chosen not to, so it's ultimately on him. I logged into the mobile editor just now just to make sure that there is a notifications tab, and Helen bleedin' Keller would be able to tell if she had messages. I'm not saying indef him (ok, I wouldn't mind that), but he needs something more than a message to get his attention.

"Oh, but you're being bitey." Anyone who wants to say this first needs to follow him around for a month, cleaning up after him, and trying to get his attention. Heck, if you can actually get his attention outside of blocking him first, then I might let you say I and the other users who have tried to get his attention have been bitey.

"You sure are responding to a lot of strawman arguments ahead of time." I've encountered them before with these sort of not-quite-vandal disruptive editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They've got the word "truth" in their username, that's usually enough to sound general quarters and load the blockhammer shells. Blackmane (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked them. Edits like these need to be referenced and agreed in talk. Let me know if they continue when the block expires and I think the next block will be indefinite. --John (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian, you forgot to mention that they've never used an article talkpage or an explanatory edit summary, either. (Usually no edit summary at all, but if they've added a word, they'll occasionally put that word as an edit summary.) I rather wish somebody had thought to ask them to do that, in amongst all the warnings, and link them to 3RR, too. There's been something of a rash of newbies with similar behaviour lately, and I, at least, haven't had any luck with giving them short blocks to catch their attention, as John has now done; they tend to simply sit out the block and either disappear (=create a new account?) or resume after it expires. I agree with John's block, and hope it'll help, but the contributions don't look very promising. I'll just try the non-templated human voice once, and tell them what they need to do keep editing Wikipedia after this block expires. If they steam on regardless, I'll be as willing as John to block indefinitely. (Ian, if the suspicions you mention are germane to the editing of the articles, you might consider sharing them by e-mail.) Bishonen | talk 21:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC).

Kumioko, again

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

---

There was very recently a community ban discussion concerning Kumioko, which was closed with no consensus to ban, and an admonition for Kumioko to "grow up". Kumioko was editing at the time through IPs, most of which were blocked, so he created the account User:BannedEditor. This acoount was indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts by Adrmboltz, the block was lifted by 28bytes so that Kumioko could participate in the ban discussion, then the block was reinstated by 28bytes when the discussion concluded. As the account's block log shows:

• 22:01, 11 February 2014 28bytes (talk | contribs) blocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (restoring Admrboltz's block)
• 14:19, 10 February 2014 28bytes (talk | contribs) unblocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (per discussion with blocking admin)
• 13:43, 10 February 2014 Admrboltz (talk | contribs) blocked BannedEditor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)

The indef block for abusing multiple accounts is still in place. Blocks for abusing multiple accounts are for the person, not for the account, so until, this block is lifted, Kumioko is not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any account or IP - however, he is currently editing as User:108.45.104.158. This is, unfortunately, yet another example of Kumioko's belief that our rules to not apply to him. I would ask that this IP to blocked, that any other IP he begins to edit with be blocked, and that Kumioko is prevented from editing here until the indef block is lifted. BMK (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Because of my history with Kumioko, and because I said more than enough in the ban discussion concerning my take on his behavior, I will not be participating in this thread unless specifically asked to by a third party. BMK (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But you were willing to start it, yet again over nothing. You want to see me kicked off the site and you always have. I only hope the community realizes that you are the one that needs to be removed not me. This is a stupid waste of the communities time and should be closed. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Of the two of you, only one adds value to this project, and it ain't you Kumioko. I would add that your repetitive and pointless crying on Jimbo's talk page is also a "stupid waste of the communities time". However, my view at this point is that BMK should simply ignore your latest round of whining and move on. Resolute 01:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Prior really long AN thread found no consensus to block K from IP editing. NE Ent 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, you didn't say what you wanted. I realise you said you'd stay off the thread, but your posts so far don't explain what you want. Another community ban discussion? The last one, as you said, was closed with no consensus. Or do you want admins to block a specific account or IP? If so, maybe SPI is more appropriate and less drama?

Can you clarify what admin action you are requesting? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, blocking this IP wont really amount to anything except making things more confusing. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I intend to close down this discussion in an hour or two, unless there are objections, on the basis that there's no specific admin action requested so far. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

" I would ask that this IP to blocked, that any other IP he begins to edit with be blocked, and that Kumioko is prevented from editing here until the indef block is lifted" sounds like a "specific admin action" request to me.

As to whether there is anything to do here. Yes SPI would be the place to go, however Admrboltz decided not to block the main account meaning that he decided not to sanction Kumioko. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vote time then? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, user is not disrupting the project at this time, can't see any justification for a de facto ban. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Kumioko, would you consider a voluntary break, perhaps of three months, from Wikipedia? If you tried to edit during that time, someone would just revert your edit, without commentary, templates, or lots of fuss. I think the last ban discussion failed, in part, because there's a stigma of serious wrongdoing associated with bans that people don't see in your conduct. But you've said many times that you were going to retire, or stop editing, or go off to Wikia, and then come back here a few days later, unable to stop commenting. If people helped you stay on Wikibreak by reverting you, without labeling your behavior as "sockpuppetry" or misconduct, would that serve your purposes? I think the current pattern of behavior is doing a lot to upset both you and other people, and it's not really helping change the encyclopedia or the way it's run. Choess (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions on IPs. No evidence of wrongdoing other than the usual drama-fest and attention seeking behavior by Beyond My Ken/BMK. Let a thousand IPs bloom across Wikipedia with the freedom to comment as they see fit. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried to close this, per [112]. Which seems reasonable, no?

But someone objects [113] [114].

They said, "A non-admin should not close an AN/I discussion when specific admin action has been requested" [115] - is that some new policy I do not know about? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

87.232.55.69

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

---

Disruptive editor who clearly fits WP:NOTHERE. Returns sporadically to vandalize; most recent acts are to change album personnel listings to completely fictional ones. Previously has been reverted for adding non-notable entries to lists of musical topics and to change colors on band member timeline graphics to ones that are hard for readers and editors alike to use. Never uses edit summaries and never attempts to discuss or describe his/her changes, and has been warned repeatedly (up to being given the final warning template twice. What should we do? (I can provide diffs, but really, it's their entire edit history, just go take a look.) LazyBastardGuy 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If they are vandalizing why didn't you report them to WP:ANV? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, people, I was expecting that question. I actually did take it up to ANV twice, believe it or not; the first time his edits were too long ago (I only noticed he was at it again a few days after the fact) and the second time I was told to take it here, in spite of the fact that I had caught him mere hours afterward this time. One way or another, he'll get dealt with, though. ;)

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the barnstar! LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200, it's helpful to report problems. Kindly do not bite people who do so, just because they weren't aware of all the wrinkles of Wikipedia's noticeboard labyrinth. This can be dealt with here. Thank you for reporting, LazyBastardGuy, I'll take a look when I've got time, unless another admin gets in first. For another time, WP:AIV is the ideal place to report vandalism. Bishonen | talk 05:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I am puzzled as to how you viewed that as biting. That was a mere question. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you? Then please note for future reference that a question like that is biting, and there's no need for it, because you know the answer. (Why do you think they didn't report it to WP:AIV?) It's chilling, especially as a first response to somebody who took the trouble to report a long-time problem that certainly needed dealing with. Apparently it's a static IP, I've blocked for 72 hours. If the pattern resumes after the block, they'll get a longer one next time. Bishonen | talk 05:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, there's two level 4 warnings on the I.P.'s talk, so further vandalism should be reported to AIV as "vandalism after level 4 warning". Now, let's not fight about it. All that I'm saying is that AIV is the better path and we have the same end result, so let's move on. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP is claiming that a particular user (behind an IP) returns sporadically to vandalize, and is asking for assistance. Have you looked at the case? What do you think? Perhaps you could at least help by providing a link to the IP (87.232.55.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The type of problem reported above is not suitable for WP:AIV (unless by a good luck a bold admin notices the post and takes stronger action than normal). At any rate, Bishonen has taken the first step. Johnuniq (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was told the same thing over at AIV. That's why I'm here. LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Genre-changing vandal back at work

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

---

78.62.26.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just reverted about 25 unexplained genre changes from tonight alone. Just see the contributions; they're all the same. The IP was blocked in January for the exact same behavior and is back at it with a veangence. I left a couple warnings on the talk page, but it seems like this is an unrepentant genre-warrior and needs a block. I brought it here rather than AIV since there are so many pages involved.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah yes. Thanks for reporting, Alf. How you doin'? Drmies (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor making undiscussed page moves despite being warned in the past

Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs) has just moved Common Era and Anno Domini without any discussion. He was warned about such moves in September 2012 but has obviously ignored the warning. I'm moving back but I've got no reason to think this won't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong in making an undiscussed page move, per WP:BOLD. I can see that the 2012 move was a bad one, but the move from Common Era to CE and BCE is not a terrible one. You've reverted it now; what now needs to happen is a discussion per WP:RM. If Crumpled Fire did the same move again, that would be a problem, but the move was in itself a reasonable one - not one I would personally support in move discussion, but I saw it on my watchlist and thought, "Fair enough". I think you're being rather unfair taking this straight to ANI. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, I would have appreciated a bit more WP:AGF from the poster of this ANI, but I suppose I can see where he's coming from. What prompted me to make this bold move was that I had noticed "Before Christ (BC)" was now bolded on the Anno Domini page, as was Before Common/Christian/Current Era (BCE) on the Common Era page. That, combined with what I would perceive as an obvious bias in favor of "Common" over the other two alternatives ("Christian Era" is seen first historically), is what prompted me to think that these would hopefully not be controversial moves to make in unison. I now see that it is most certainly a controversial move, and will make effort to not move pages without prior discussion in the future. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is certainly preferred, over let's say, burning people at the stake for disagreeing with you. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is certainly preferable to puerile hyperbole. --John (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "childishly silly and trivial" to observe that according to history, people were burned at the stake by Christian authorities. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I took him to ANI because he ignored an earlier warning. These are not rarely edited pages and I don't think that WP:BOLD is appropriate for a page move unless for an article with little to no recent activity. However, Crumpled Fire seems to have taken the point so I am happy for this to be closed. I really don't think the comparison between starting this thread and burning people at the stake is appropriate and I'm disappointed to see it being made .Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the user name, "Crumpled Fire". Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I completely misunderstood this. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One would hope an editor who had edited a religion-related article before would have noticed the wording of these articles is critical, and every change is likely to be controversial. In the case at hand, changing from titles with full words to titles with initials can be viewed as adopting the point of view that the terms are merely initials in people's mind, and no longer carry any religious significance. Obviously this point of view is not shared by everyone. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

BLOCK REQUEST (again)

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

---

Who let the mad man out? Please block this user again. He was a proven sock puppet and he clearly did not learn from past mistakes and is starting to annoy everyone again with his tyrant-style editing and modifications (with no respect to general rules and follow Wikipedia users of cause).

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/special:contributions/Guardian_of_the_Rings

125.168.97.231 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than just linking to his contribs list and laying into another editor with personal attacks without evidence is unacceptable. The conclusion of the discussion on their talk page about their use of sock accounts was that there was no abusive use of them, but rather the creation and abandoning of a series of accounts avoiding the areas that the previous accounts edited in. This is allowable under WP:CLEANSTART. Blackmane (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

125.168.97.231, you need to provide specific examples (diffs) to support your allegations. Just saying an editor is guilty of bad behavior is not grounds to block them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If he can't do better than that, it's best to close this rather inflammatory thread. GotR ^Talk 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible misbehavior of an IP user (again)

An editor replied me with Chinese (with only a small section translated into English) in Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) but the reply might be a bit inappropriate. The user has been warned previously on his another IP address's talk page. These are the comments he made on me:

1. Saying my past edits (contributions) make him feel "ashamed"（我看了一下您老历来的编辑和在维基上的“贡献”，真是另我汗颜啊。）;
2. Again questioning my "literacy" like before after I made a mistake on identifying the source（就从这里您问的两个问题，就是显出您自己理解上和知识上的问题了（您尽管去投诉，看看是否人身攻击），恐怕不胜任这里的编辑要求啊。大公报引述的是台湾中通社的消息，放狗搜搜都是可以找到的。中通社不“亲中“了吧？Oda朋友的反复要求，这个页面也是明确的。别人都看得明白，为什么就你看不到？我说的阅读能力（literacy），有错么？您老应该提高一下。）;
3. Claiming that replying to my questions is "a loss of dignity", thus will refuse to respond to my questions and asked me not to reply to his comments in the future（回复您老的问题真是有失身分。您老以后的问题我都不回答。请您老不要在follow up我的发言，谢谢！）;
4. Accused me for "inciting Hong Kong-China hatred" for no reason (which is also off-topic) and described me as an "incompetent wiki editor" because I kept "vandalizing" wikipedia, therefore I should "read more books"（还有，你们港独招小朋友有牢狱之灾啊，连”扮民主派“的大状都不愿意出庭辩护啊。有时间多读读书，看看别人写的wiki。对维基做破坏贡献，显示出您的literacy的问题，宣扬分裂国家、煽动陆港仇恨就是您不对了。不胜任维基编辑可以不做嘛。）

I personally think that these words might be inappropriate, so I decide to report here. lssrn45 | talk 13:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui, who is an admin, has already left them a warning on their talkpage. Unfortunately, there is little point in blocking them or issuing final warnings. IP's in HK are typically dynamic so by the time they appear again, they'll be on a different address. I suggest that ignoring their attack laden reply and focus on the content is the best way to go. In future, if their replies are loaded with NPA again, per WP:TPO you can just revert them and ask an admin for a temporary block. Blackmane (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I think it is also the only thing I can do though... lssrn45 | talk 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal reborn

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

---

A vandalizing user, Irate158, who was blocked because of their behavior, has clearly created a new account for himself, IrateGuy. He's going about creating fake articles and vandalizing existing ones, just as he did as Irate158. Can someone block him? I didn't try warning him; I just didn't see the point. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future, you should report this to WP:AIV or WP:SPI.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed this account per WP:QUACK. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive (sort of) editing

Following the fuss caused by the renaming debate at Australia national association football team and the subsequent NPOV tagging, LauraHale (talk · contribs), one of the proposers of the move, today also NPOV tagged one of the redirects to the article (Australia national football team). This broke almost 900 incoming links, so I reverted to a pure redirect. She then changed the redirect to Australia national football team (disambiguation), even though almost all the incoming links were for the men's team. I then asked her to stop editing out of spite (there is a fairly unpleasant history behind the debate, so AGF is not really an option, particularly when Laura has been involved in off-wiki canvassing) and if she really wanted to tag the redirect, then to direct all the links to the correct page first.

Laura responded by asking that I retract my comments about spite, and then proceeded to start changing the links to the article in question. However, rather than linking them directly to Australia national association football team, she has instead been changing them to link to Australia men's national association football team, another redirect, but one with the article title she would like to see, which does rather seem to prove the point that either making a WP:POINT or spite is the motivating factor behind the editing.

Could someone perhaps have a quiet word, as I don't believe this is the way editors should be going about things. Cheers, Number 57 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Number 57 has been asked several times to retract non-WP:AGF comment regarding my motivation. Number 57 has not. Further, Number 57 said that the redirect was linked to from multiple articles as a reason not to change the redirect. I WP:AGF followed the advice by changing the existing links (which are redirects anyway) in accordance with Number 57's advice. --LauraHale (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated above Laura, it's very difficult to AGF given your past comments (basically saying anyone who disagrees with you is sexist) and deeds around the article. Number 57 21:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your edits Laura other than to make a point? I don't see any benefit to the encyclopaedia .. Don't fix it applies here... JMHamo (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's just an essay, and shouldn't be taken at face value. But Laura shouldn't be editing articles just to fix a redirect to another redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As happened at Mark Bosnich here. That's just a lame attempt at POV-pushing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Sbcho7

Sbcho7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to vandalises Australia national under-20 association football team, despited requests and warnings to cease on his talk page.--2nyte (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've warned them for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Davidbena

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

---

I report User:Davidbena, a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, since refuses to obey WP:OR and WP:SYNTH after repeatedly being told to obey these rules, as manifest in lots of his recent edits at Talk:Gospel of Matthew (take a look at the talk page history and you will see him in action, too many edits to provide diffs).

The user was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits. He later tried to propose some articles for creation, but they all had the same basic flaw: WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The link to the previous ANI is disturbing, since a topic ban was proposed, and four editors supported it, with none opposed. Was the topic ban ever enacted? If not, why not? Why didn't an admin ever close the discussion? StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There was never any reason to impose a topic ban against me, since when I was asked to desist from making suggestions on how to improve the article, I immediately stopped. Besides, I was a newbie at that time, with little experience.Davidbena (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer that, since I am not an administrator, but his OR articles are Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holy Incense and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yemenite Ketubba. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I report User:Tgeorgescu who has consistently been involved in tendentious editing, violating the policy of WP:TE in the Talk page of Gospel of Matthew. The facts there speak for themselves. I suggest a topic ban to this editor, who wantonly abrogates the rules laid out by Wikipedia, and under the pretenses that I am the villain here, when I have done nothing amiss, stands to be chastised for a lesson unto all those who act similarly. I propose that User:Tgeorgescu be banned from engaging and editing on Gospel of MatthewDavidbena (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, forget about me and count how many times other editors told you on Talk:Gospel of Matthew that original research isn't acceptable and how many times you begged to differ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when I was a newbie. But when I was asked to stop, I complied. Now the villain is you. You are obviously engaged in tendentious editing. I will insist on a topic ban for you.Davidbena (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you show proof of my tendentious editing that's actually going to happen. But not if you cannot substantiate it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you are unreasonable. Anyone looking at our exchanges on Talk "Gospel of Matthew" can see that you have been antagonistic and tendentious all along the way. I have nothing to do with your accusations since User:PiCo invited me to help mediate on the Gospel of Matthew Talk page. I came, not on my own volition, but by invitation.Davidbena (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why have you objected to the application of WP:OR and presented many original research arguments in that talk page and my own talk page, when you were specifically asked to present quotes from secondary sources? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of proof, I have to prove my point of how he answered other editors by indulging in original research and/or objecting to the very application of WP:OR, even though he was advised that original research is banned: [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. And this is a good one, since he shows awareness of the ban on original research: [132]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, he was a newbie in August, now it's February. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Tgeorgescu, I think your behaviour here could be construed as bullying. @Davidbena, my advice to you is to keep your cool and don't go hurling counter-accusations just because you feel you're being threatened. And my advice to all concerned is to drop it. PiCo (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will not reply any more to his insults. What Tgeorgescu fails to realize is that WP:OR doesn't apply to Talk Pages when there was never any intent to have these personal statements published without verification and reliability. He (Tgeorgescu) has clearly gone-off into left field.Davidbena (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:PiCo: it were bullying if I was the only one telling him to desist from original research. User:Ignocrates also made clear there that he is collecting diffs having to do with WP:OR for arbitration. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

He stated:

Based on what I have read of their comments (e.g., see Nishidani's talk page), I think David and Ret.Prof intend to argue for the priority of primary sources on Wikipedia, i.e. they should have primacy over secondary sources because they are the authentic words of the Church Fathers, unadulterated by the interpretations of modern scholars. It should be an interesting debate in mediation and a pity it's privileged communication. I'm looking forward to it. Ignocrates (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And that is the very original research problem, made patently obvious in {{Religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena's scorn for contemporary scholarship is obvious at [133]. So, he quotes primary sources because he does not believe that verifiable information based upon secondary and tertiary sources would matter. But, in this respect, for Wikipedia secondary and tertiary sources are all that matter. Now, I am not saying that he has to agree with contemporary scholars, but he has to agree with Wikipedia rules and policies if he wants to edit here. And these rules say that contemporary scholarship is all that matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This sort of thing is an abuse of the mediation process. I agree with user User:PiCo that Tgeorgescu's behavior is close to bullying. My advice to David is to keep your cool and don't go hurling counter-accusations just because you feel you're being threatened. And my advice to all concerned is to drop it. We must end the personal attacks. We must all focus on the content issues in good faith. As a sign of my good faith I apologize for anything I have done and pledge to focus only on the content. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My point was: he realized that he cannot win by secondary and tertiary sources so he tried to win by appealing to original research based upon primary sources. This is gaming Wikipedia and you tell me that I am a bully because I want Wikipedia policies be enforced. Well, if he does not abide by those policies, getting bullied by administrators is part of the package, since they have become administrators in order to enforce those policies. Those policies are not optional and they are not negotiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw my name pop up on an alert, so I will add my 2-pence here. The community should be aware that we are about to begin formal mediation on the content aspects of this dispute. A mediator has been assigned, and we are all waiting for the mediator to show up so that we can get underway. In that context, you might say this is all nervous energy; we are having a pre-mediation discussion on the talk page. That said, Tgeorgescu has a point. There is an obstinacy toward acknowleging aspects of WP:PSTS that is beginning to look like willful blindness, specifically the right way (and wrong ways) to use primary sources. This has already been explained repeatedly, with practical examples, over the course of months. My advice is similar to PiCo's; everyone calm down and let the mediator do his/her best to facilitate an acceptable outcome for everyone concerned. If mediation fails to resolve the problem, the conduct aspects of this dispute are headed to arbitration, where both Davidbena and Ret.Prof will be involved parties. Ignocrates (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Some original research could be allowed in talk pages in order to debunk small factual inaccuracies in reliable sources or in order to deny that a book or article is a reliable source. However, it does not follow that it could be employed to debunk the consensus view of mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia editors should not play scholar in talk pages, so deciding upon the scholarly consensus is a privilege reserved to scholars who live by publish or perish. Wikipedia editors simply do not make the call which scholar is right through citing evidence provided by primary sources. I have explained this over and over, other editors also did it, and I still got the idea that the reported used does not want to hear that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Baby boomers

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

---

71.93.51.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists upon adding "sucks" and "worst generation" claims to Baby boomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) based on nothing more than Google search results and satirical articles. He's persisted in this behavior despite several warnings. I would greatly appreciate administrative assistance with this problem. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

They've shot WP:3RR to hell but weren't warned for it. I've added the appropriate notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clear vandalism. Blocked for a week, hopefully he won't come back. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Recent behaviour of User:Ryulong

ryulong (talk · contribs) I think we need to discuss this users recent behaviour. This user has a long history of warring with other editors and apparently will do anything to have anyone who gets in his way blocked. I would like someone to check out Tommy_Oliver where he accuses the nominator of being a sock of one his opponents and paints himself as a victim of harassment. I think it's time to remind this person that he has no right to intimidate other editors and that he himself will get blocked. He has a long block history and it's time to address what needs to be done. --Anonymous 16:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.98.130 (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Definitely edit warring there (Ryulong and IP 174) and inappropriate removal of comments by Ryulong. If they think an editor is a sock, sock puppet investigations is the place to go and, no, it doesn't matter than a checkuser won't check an IP, not all SPI's require CU for adjudication. NE Ent 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Because a checkuser doesn't link IP's to accounts, it's just a judgement call. Are you saying Ryulong is less capable of such a judgement call than the people that frequent SPI?--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles in question are List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes and Tommy Oliver. He has been known to accuse new editors who edit those Pages as being "trolls" and harassing him. He seems to he owns those pages and will not let anyone else edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.1.153 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Additionally, the community has endorsed the judgement of SPI admins via Rfa, and the process -- in which one editor identifies a possible sock and an admin SPI volunteer validates that judgement -- is less prone to error. IPs have been given the right to edit here by the website owners (WMF), and those of us who edit here have an obligation to respect that. NE Ent 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I got rather tangled up in this sorry mess myself: see also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#User trying to delete nomination and its edit history, [134] where Ryulong and an IP were edit-warring over the IPs posting of a complaint about Ryulong deleting a malformed AfD in the Tommy Oliver article, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron, and the thread on Ryulong 's talk page [135]. It seems that Ryulong was right about there being socking involved, but I still think that the way he handled this was entirely inappropriate. Ryulong could simply have asked for an SPI, and posted a comment to that effect in the malformed AfD discussion. Or posted similar a comment in the thread started by the sock in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Instead, edit-warring to remove all traces of what only he at that point had decided was a sock ended up making the whole situation much worse. And as it happens I think the original malformed AfD actually had a great deal of merit - the Tommy Oliver article is a great wall of fancrufty plot summary, with little evidence to support any independent notability for what is after all just one of many characters in a long-running franchise. It has been suggested before that Ryulong tends to exhibit ownership of articles, and has a habit of deleting anything he doesn't like without explanation. In this case, such behaviour seems to have spectacularly backfired. I'm not usually in the habit of watchlisting obscure fancruft, and unless something obvious draws my attention (e.g. the edit war at talk:Articles for deletion) I for one wouldn't have known about it. Perhaps Ryulong should bear this in mind in future, and deal with suspected socking in a more appropriate manner, rather than engaging in behaviour which not only circumvents due process, but attracts the attention of others to his questionable behaviour. If the purpose of the socking was to cause trouble, Ryulong seems to have ensured that it succeeded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OP here is a sockpuppet of a banned user, likely either Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver, and is very likely AS92813 evading his ban with the help of dynamic IP assignment. So therefore my removals are in line with WP:BAN. It is unfortunate that people forget that banned editors are not allowed to edit and that I am the unfortunate target of a large number of banned editors. The nature of Tommy Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should not be up for discussion here. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think that simply because I'm not a clerk should not mean that I cannot identify sockpuppets of banned users that I regularly come in contact with when I see them. I may have been incorrect in my initial thought that this was Wiki-star harassing me again, but at least new evidence has come up to suggest another banned user(s) is to blame here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that banned users have the right to edit. I am however suggesting that you unilaterally deciding that the IP was a sock and edit-warring with them at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion was a sure-fire way to ensure that the sock achieved their intended result. What harm would it have done to simply note your suspicions in the malformed AfD, or at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, raise a SPI, and leave the matter there? Edit-warring with the sock achieved nothing beyond aggravating the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring when it's a banned editor's sockpuppet. Also, AS92813 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his talk page access revoked and block extended for the sockpuppetry performed in posting this thread and in editing this article. He removed my comment to any admins who might read it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

just a bad case of edit warring against an edit you don't agree with when there is no evidence of your claims. 03:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.130.219 (talk)

And here is another sock puppet address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He is making another attempt to manipulate policy and get someone blocked. 174.236.104.53 (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what he's making, but it is quite clear what you're up to [136]. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got to agree that Ryulong's recent behaviour has been problematic. Claiming any IP must be a sock, without any substantive evidence, just because they may happen to disagree with his POV is just wrong. Just above[137] he attempts to have an opponent, who appears to be in good standing judging by his clean block log, sanctioned over an obvious content disagreement. It seems that he'd rather have his perceived opponents administratively eliminated rather than do the hard yards in building consensus through the various dispute resolution processes. He has been sanctioned in that past by ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong for misusing rollback and IRC to elicit admin action, and we are seeing the same pattern of behaviour in his tendency to edit war and ask admins directly on their talk page for assistance. This just can't go on. --Nug (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes shows this user persistently reverting edits that are clearly not vandalism because he feels they're committing "block evasion", even though the IPs in question were not blocked at all. Eventually, he asks editor Materialscientist to block the IP range and he complies without even looking into the matter. You have to wonder what this person is trying to accomplish in not allowing other people to edit these articles. The only editor in question is the AfD nominator which got blocked for 3 days. Another problem is his kneejerk reaction to edits he doesn't agree with, like this one. He reverts and immediately, without notifying the editor reports the user or IP to WP:AIAV. It appears in this case the editor who blocked the IPs never looked at the IP's contributions, so clearly this seems to be a coordinated attack on the IPs and the editor who nominated This AFD. I think he needs to stop taking edits to "his" pages personally and be civil like everyone else. 174.254.194.116 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If a person has been banned, than any contribution, no mater how useful, is prohibited. Using multiple IP to evaded a blocked is disruptive. To suggest that all these 174.*.*.* IPs that are editing the same articles and making the same accusations against Ryulong are different people flies in the face of common sense. -- 24.149.117.220 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that somoene block is forbidden from editing, but the user has no proof who the IPs belong to so they are clearly acting on suspicion alone. 174.226.192.213 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's illogical to insist it's an eagle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But the duck, if one exists, hasn't been identified. It hasn't even been determined yet whether these IPs do in fact belong to a banned user, the clerks at SPI have suggested around 3 or 4 possible candidates but are unsure and have referred it to a CU. In the mean time IPs are being blocked on apparent suspicion seemingly fanned by Ryulong. What exactly was the urgency that caused Ryulong to revert here before due process? --Nug (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The duck exists and it's quacking as is evident from this thread. And the only reason there are 3 or 4 possible candidates is because 3 of them are probably the same person and the fourth is a misidentification because I seem to have a lot of people that dislike me and have a lot of free time on teir hands. And WP:BMB, banned users' edits are reverted regardless of the content. This is the same bullshit pulled by socks of Don't Feed the Zords/BuickCenturyDriver last year on List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. New year. New season. New honeypot. Stop assuming everything I'm doing is wrong, Nug. I am not abusing rollback. I am not violating my arbitration restrictions. I am doing everything within the word of the law in order to prevent a banned editor from doing anything. I should be able to know without "due process" that I'm being harassed by the same person on a dynamic IP assignment. And it is really unprofessional to do this, Nug, simply because we are butting heads over a completely unrelated issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Now can someone please close this thread because it's only feeding the trolls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not up to you. You know very well that you no right to decide who is and isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia. WP is for everyone, and is free for anyone to edit just as Facebook and Google. Besides, you have no proof that our IP range belong to any banned user. 174.252.0.103 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that this is a honeypot that needs to be shut down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are completely wrong. We can and do restrict people from editing - nobody has a 'right' to edit. And such restriction doesn't need 'proof' either - though we generally only act where there are reasonable grounds to suspect improper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this guy saying he's more than one person when this thread has had the signatures modified to be "Anonymous" twice?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

And god, what is it with this time of year and your free time? You pulled this same garbage last year and got caught.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the edits came from the same IP range doesn't prove anything. Just let it go, take a break and let the arbcom deal with it. You're only hurting yourself. Nobody is harassing you and the current episode list are hardly vandslism. 24.185.93.138 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found a different internet connection to harass from.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is, unfortunately, a consistently abusive editor, like his following little edit war from last year shows: "God damn it's just a fucking section that's directly related to one you should have but didn't make yesterday" User_talk:Boneyard90#The_section

When faced with this in a recent dispute on his behaviour, his main "defence" is that it was practically a year ago,as well as "I haven't heard about you before", because I happened to bring this piece of abuse up, but misplaced it as a wholly unjustified criticism of myself, rather than being a wholly unjustified abuse of User:Boneyard90

This kind of attitude, and language, ought to be wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia from editors.Arildnordby (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Have I ever said that I felt I was right in responding that way? It's obviously wrong. I have a bad habit of speaking on this website informally and that comes out when I am bothered by someone's actions. But that does not mean you have to keep dregging up that one comment I left to Boneyard90 a half a year ago as an example of "Ryulong should be punished" when all this garbage was started and is being perpetuated by a banned user. It seems you are still misconstruing what I did (why do you assume it had to do with you when I pointed out it had to do with this, and there was no reason to start up a new thread considering the first one comprised two comments). I was wrong then. I may be wrong about certain things now. But the fact still remains that I am being hounded by sockpuppets of a banned editor and editors like you, AndyTheGrump, Nug, and now Robert McClenon are enabling him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish for general sympathy and support, get your attitude right. Using the f-word, (and you also have used in summaries ffs) just alienate others. "fhs" is a lot less offensive than ffs, and you know that.Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The use of non-directed profanity in one's comments is a personal choice, and it has long been the consensus of this project that its usage is not in and of itself uncivil. Let's drop that red herring. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, personally. If Wikipedia thinks it is OK to put off, say, roughly 90% of the world population by allowing sexually explicit swear words to be part and parcel of "verbal intercourse" here, perhaps Wikipedia might be the one suffering from it? But, I'm not to fish for herrings here. Particularly if they are red, after all... End of story :-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, I think that the civility line is that if someone politely asks you not to swear at them, especially on their talk page, civility demands that you should try not to. But that's the limit. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Civility ss to answer in what you yourself, to the best of your ability, regard as a value neutral way, focusing on the logic of the argument, with minimal rhetorical flourish. If some particular editor has given you license to bang their heads in to "really" get the message through, go ahaed. Otherwise, avoid it. Tou can have lots of valuable editors who gets frightened/put off oof a nerdy/socially uncouth way of speaking.Arildnordby (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) You are an abusive editor.Arildnordby (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is equally uncivil to demand that someone else conform to your perception of what is and isn't appropriate levels of swearing in interaction, as long as they don't attempt to describe you with their swearwords. Request moderation of language all you want, but if they refuse, you can either ignore it or disengage from interaction with that individual. An exception might be made if the interaction is on your talk page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets should not be responded to. Don't feed them, don't respond to them. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
if Wikipedia is not a battleground, it sure seems like the Wild West these days where anything goes. It seems you can edit as if you were playing a video game. 19:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by LotsofSnowThisWinter (talk • contribs) Really? I happen to know about the whole penis-in-vagina-thing. Are you a sockpuppet for Ryolung, perhaps? Perhaps he doesn't know about the penis-in-vagina-thing, and therefore has an innate craving to descend into that type of language??? Anyhow, it offensive to normal people that he habitually resorts to such type of abuse. That was my main point.Arildnordby (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Arildnordby, this is really just showing you should not be commenting in this debate any longer. LotsofSnowThisWinter is one of my harassers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Not really. It simply shows that you have LOTS to work on at your attitude and language, and still don't get it. What language you, or I, happen to use at a bar simply isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. You alienate people with your manner.Arildnordby (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Another Ryulong thread: Is it ArbCom time yet?

Here we go again with another thread about Ryulong. The many threads about Ryulong just illustrate why "community consensus" at these noticeboards seldom solves anything. It works reasonably well with trolls, flamers, and other editors who are not here to build the encyclopedia, but is an electron sink with tendentious editors such as Ryulong. Sometime some editor will get sufficiently frustrated with the drama caused by this editor, and other editors with whom he edit-wars, and other editors whom he dislikes and who dislike him, that they will file an ArbCom case. Until then, there will just be a lot of pointless drama. Unfortunately, it's ignore the quarreling or file an ArbCom case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about the arbcom case, but I strongly suggest RL that he give up trying to keep new editors off his favorite pages and let it go. The more he tries to get them block the more they keep coming back. I seriously don't know what he's trying to accomplish by pursuing them off the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.93.138 (talk)

• Would anyone wanting to pose a serious question like this please first get some experience concerning what Arbcom does. Also, it is unacceptable to claim WP:NOTHERE with no evidence other than mud from a previous section. I just had a glance at Tommy Oliver and it's not the kind of article I would use as a model for notability, and Ryulong should learn that edit warring even with probable socks is not productive, particularly when other editors join in. However, have a look at WT:Articles for deletion#User trying to delete nomination and note that Ryulong made a sock accusation there—and the sock was later blocked. What evidence of WP:NOTHERE exists, apart from an over-eagerness to combat probable socks and fictional-category enthusiasts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be quite frustrating to have to deal with IP block evaders and general incompetence, of which there is a lot in the Power Rangers and Super Sentai subject area. It becomes doubly frustrating when those block evaders come complaining here on ANI and their enablers, rather than look at years of background and facts, just count how many times Ryulong is the subject of threads to reach the short-sighted conclusion that if it's this many threads, it must be Ryulong's fault. I'm not saying Ryulong is the paragon of good behavior, he isn't. But he gets too little credit here.--Atlan (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq, Atlan. I cannot believe that an ArbCom case is even being mentioned when in the most recent cases of me being involved with anything on this page lately (as well as several of my recent blocks) are due to having to deal with banned users head on and only realize this fact afterwards, and the other case is another user who got banned for the very thing I brought him here for. All I'm trying to do is keep a bunch of extremely crufty pages from getting too out of control. And for some reason that pisses a lot of people off. And on top of that I have to deal with BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords/EddieSegoura/CBDrunkerson/god knows who he really is here and Wiki-star/Dragonron on every other month. It's too much for me to handle and no one wants to touch these pages with a 10 foot pole or get involved with anything regarding me because of the stigma that I've gained for being who I am on this website. I know I need to change my behavior. But I can't do that when I have to keep track of two separate sets of banned users who I've pissed off by figuring out who they are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

SPI perspective

From an SPI perspective see this and this. Any IP in the 174.192.0.0/10 range should be considered a sock when they're arguing this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We can add 24.185.93.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list too. If I recall, these banned users originate from the same area.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

the Spi page was closed with the two username blocked, do that didn't do much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotsofSnowThisWinter (talk • contribs)

Brand new account that comes immediately here to comment against Ryulong. Yeap, this is yet another sock. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects

I'm trying to better understand why the efforts of one organization or group whose primary goal is public awareness regarding the dangers of terrorism involving Jihadists and radical Islamists is being labeled Islamophobic and actually included as part of a Wiki series on "Islamophobia" (the latter of which I find to be very subjective and seemingly biased which violates Wiki guidelines) while another is portrayed as positive, and far more balanced in the presentation. One such example is the label of Islamophobic given to Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) , and specifically referencing Pam Geller as Jewish and "described as anti-Islamic[10] or Islamophobic" VS the very positive portrayal of the Investigative Project on Terrorism , and Steven Emerson whose religious affiliation is not disclosed, although his affiliation with the Democrat party is mentioned. . I did not present my question on the SIOA Talk Page because the actual page was recently in lock-down. From what I gleaned, there was an ongoing dispute which may or may not have been provoked by bias, and that is why I decided to bring my questions directly to the Administrators for discussion. I also believe there may be rule violations resulting from what appears to be religious discrimination against Pamela Geller. If I'm seeing it, I'm sure other Wiki readers are seeing it as well. I would very much appreciate input from some of our Administrators who were not involved in the SIOA dispute before I attempt to make any edits. Thanking you in advance. Atsme (talk)

I just took a look at the Steven Emerson and Investigative Project on Terrorism articles. My impression is that both of those should be treated similarly to Pamela Geller and Stop Islamization of America such that all of these articles accurately describe the hate-filled vitriol directed at Islamic people. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, we don't settle content disputes here. That's not the role of Administrators. You might want WP:NPOVN. Or perhaps WP:BLPN in respect to Pamela Geller as she is a living person. I'll be glad to advise you at either of those venues on any specific issues, but this board is basically to deal with actions by named editors that violate our policies and guidelines in ways that require actions that only Administrators can do. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He does have a point about one subject identified by religion and the other not. Otherwise I am not sure I understand his point. Coretheapple (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

erratic/abusive vendetta edits/commentary

Those familiar with my name here know how much I dislike the place and having to bring anything here; but re this I feel some action must be taken against User:PemGateway who has had vocal and hysterical responses to reversions of badly-written and uncited/sloppy material he inserted on Pemberton, British Columbia and Whistler, British Columbia. Though other editors have also reverted his work on those other pages, and he has railed against them and Wikipedia before, he has singled out me as his enemy now, and taken my comments on his off-the-wall addition to the Whistler article's climate section (Whistler is one of the rainiest places in BC, he maintains because of some travelogue/eco-bunk "citation" that it has pockets of the Sonoran Desert - which is ludicrous in the extreme). Noting I'd mentioned this as an issue on the Osoyoos article he headed over there and conducted the lengthy diatribe against me that serves no purpose, is disruptive, and attempts to rake over the coals and inflame the Sonoran Desert claim again (which has its origins in some badly-written tourism bumpf from the wine-region's marketing people based on an obscure botanical claim in one academic paper; in geography there is no question the Sonoran Desert ends at the Colorado River, over a thousand miles to the south). Suffice to say his additions to the Whistler and Pemberton article are often original research, poorly written, very POV and unencyclopedic in nature, and the name-calling he's aiming at me was used on other editors in the past re the Pemberton and Whistler articles.

I do not wish to engage him beyond having already removed his personal attacks and POV/SOAP assault against me; his newest post frets over "dozens of refs" being deleted (by User:Zefr, who cautions him to work things out in sandbox first and notes WP:PLAG with the content in question...come to think of it there was some COPYVIO/PLAG from him on the Whistler and Pemberton articles before...; perhaps that should not have been my place to do and they were of a TLNDR nature. The axe-grinding in his posts is wearisome, and uncalled for.

I hope the adminship in its wisdom can bring him to heel... junk "contributions" are one thing...name-calling and hysterics and article-stalking when those "contributions" are trimmed or reverted is another; "don't send a form letter or use ambiguous phrases pls" indicates a lack of understanding or willingness to understand Wikipedia guidelines, which are anything but vague. No doubt my reporting of this assault will wind up in him trying to maker me the issue, I will try to stay out of it. Mostly the problem is messy contributions and a lot of OR-type statements and sloppy writing/formatting...and apparently plagiarism also. The personal attacks were a step beyond all that, however... .Skookum1 (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In relation to a further edit comment/attack, I put this on the Whistler talkpage Talk:Whistler,_British_Columbia#WP:NPA_advice_to_User:PemGateway_re_edit_comments. Skookum1 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He also complained about me at the Teahouse, and I note that apparently even his initial post there was so chaotic one of the teahouse editors had to tidy it up to make it intelligible.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is lack of competence. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've been at a loss as to how to deal with this editor - the additions are good faith, but very poor quality. The talk page commentary is over the top and hard to deal with. CambridgeBayWeather was making some progress on Talk:Whistler, but it's slow going. Skookum1 shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing just because he did what needed to be done and reverted the changes. The Interior (Talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PemGateway is a bit hard to deal with. As Skookum1 says they tend to insert OR, odd formatting, random capital letters, overlinking and so on. They seem to have understood some things but others not so much. Their writing tends to favour a more folksy style. I've tried to clear up some of the stuff but it is slow going. The talk page remarks to Skookum1 are not acceptable. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Blame my old eyes and the editor's formatting and syntax, but I haven't seen the vitriol. They haven't edited since yesterday--how about we just put them on notice that no further personal attacks are warranted and block immediately if they happen again? A competence block is a possibility still, though that might call for more evidence--diffs, diffs of efforts to explain, diffs of evidence that it didn't help. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bots breaking redirects

The bots DarknessBot and AvicBot stripped away about a dozen redirects that should have pointed to Fair use and pointed them to other pages instead. DarknessBot took one that was, I believe, wrongly pointing to "Fair Access Policy" instead of Fair Use and redirected it to Bandwidth cap. This makes sense, given possible confusion about which page the redirect should have gone to in the first place. However, AvicBot pointed a bunch of other links to Dumplings (film), which is obviously wrong.

I have resolved all of this to the best of my ability, but if AvicBot sent some redirects that should be pointing to Fair use to some other page, I have no idea how to track this down. Can someone please look into this?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

TI. Gracchus (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you make an attempt to resolve this problem by directly contacting the bot operators before bringing it here? ANI is generally reserved for issues that you've already tried to resolve yourself. The bot operators are User:Avicennasis and User:ShakingSpirit. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. The bot page suggested I come here to report problems, so that's what I did. Sorry for any confusion. TI. Gracchus (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The bot page says "Admins, click here to shut down the bot, non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." If the editor wanted the bot shut down for now (possibly reasonable if it's decided that Wikipedia links should, as a general rule, all devolve to the article Dumplings (film)), he came to right place. Even if he didn't want it shut down, or didn't know if it should be shut down or not, it does say "Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and that's really the first piece of advice you see, so the editor did what the page told him to do. Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Then I would say that the advice on the bot's user page could be improved. Bot owners are responsible for their bots, they should receive and respond to any complaints about its behavior, and it should only rise to the level of ANI if the complaining editor and the bot operator can't come to an agreement, or if the bot is misbehaving so badly that it must be immediately blocked (in my opinion). Gracchus did nothing wrong. Hopefully, they can work it out on their own. If not, bring it here and involve more editors. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 03:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I'm currently trying to raise Avicennasis on his talk page. I'll talk to him about clarifying the instructions on the bot's page as well as trying to fix the dumpling issue. I'm sure that together we'll be able to get this all resolved. Again, thanks for the guidance! TI. Gracchus (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The erroneous redirection is sufficient to raise an alarm, and obviously depending on the amount of errors a block is needed - and obviously this is the place to ask for a block on the bot when necessary. I think OP did the correct thing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

user:Mareklug's self-promo

Some days ago my attention has been driven towards an ongoing editwar @meta (link, revdeleted summary contains some insults to user:Odder): in short Mareklug was trying adding two pictures he made on a non-relevant page. This brought to an inconclusive discussion I had eventually to quit (same for a generous flood of insults via IRC). Also a similar situation seemed to happen on pl.wiki. Some days later I was involved in another incident @commons, which eventually brought to Mareklug being warned and another spam-target being editprotected. Finally I found lots of self-added link/citation about Mareklug added by himself here, at en.wiki. Se 1 (this one already removed by user:Kaini), 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. He seems to be trying meeting WP:GNG via Wikimedia's sites (cfr.). The most absurd thing is how he claims everyone opposing that promo has a COI in doing it while I think we were even too polite in handling a kind of self-promo which would had quickly brought a newcomer to a global lock. Contribs are not a ticket for promo. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COS says it all. There's a conflict of interest here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

<moved to below after heavy edits, so it is a new piece, please re-address it> --Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You still claim your contribs might allow you to self-promote. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disregarding your list of accomplishments above, I must say I agree with User:Vituzzu. Even if you were notable (which I seriously doubt), there are some real COI-related issues here which should be reason enough for you to stay away from adding your own name. This is especially valid if someone is already working on an article about you as you claim here. Bjelleklang - talk 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

This is the second noticebord dear ex-IRC friend Vito has seen fit haul my butt to, in a span of a few days. He is mischaracterizing my contributions and edits. I think his say here, and there, constitutes a very biased and personally virulently unfriendly to my edits assessment, and as a steward, he lords it over me lately with, dare I say, aplomb. Meanwhile, I did the following, aside from all the nasty, global-block worthy (snicker) offenses:

1. Wrote a BLP for the first Hopi silversmith to be described on the English Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. His uncle has a stub, but the uncle's chops as great silversmith in addition to being a scholar go unmentioned there.
2. Discovered the need to blue-link commesso (art technique), which heretofore existed as italicized plain text mention in some obscure art/architecture article.
3. Lacking time and RSes to outright write that article, I soft-redirected it for now to Commons: better that than reader having no clue what commesso work looks like.
4. Searched Commons cleverly for "inlay work", "commesso", "mosaic", and found ...commesso!
5. Pooled what I found into a new category on Commons that I created and correctly situated, making the soft-redirect from our project to it possible.
6. Found an ill-begotten talk page proposition on Commons that a work be removed form a Navajo jewlery gallery because it is a ...Hopi counterfeit/gloss/aping whatever.
7. Improved the description on Commons of that work to make it understandable what it is, and why it is not a Hopi silver piece.
8. Refactored the talk page in question and reposted that info there, as well.
9. Submitted the BLP I wrote and continue to improve to DYK.
10. Removed it temporarily from DYK as the comments I wrote there are stale now, and no one commented on it yet, anyway. To be relisted soon.
11. Uploaded media that illustrates the BLP person's work, a bolo tie I own, having bought it from the BLP person after a week-long residence among the Hopi in 1988.
12. wrote e-mail off-site with cc: to three OTRS authorities (one of whom replied instantly cc:'ing everyone, including the scholar I wrote to requesting free-license portrait of the BLP person, "Never write me again, Tomasz"). This e-mail letter may produce a rare photo for our use and for Commons of a living silversmith anyway, assuming the scholar does not get put-off by intra-Wikipedia squabbling in public. Living person, so no free use applies.
13. Engaged in constructive if sometimes acrimonious discussions on-topic on IRC on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-commons and entirely friendly on #wikipedia-pl (with tar_salceson).

Did not edit for many hours, being busy in real life.

As far as Vito's vituperation, my added media on meta were 2 on-topic images illustrating the humor page meta:How to deal with Poles -- one for "Tea Who You Yeah Bunny" joke and one for the "Polish Cabal" joke. Ironically, the second is actually ...true to life and not at all a joke anymore. :(

I would like odder and Vituzzi (Vito) to please explain to me, so that I may understand, how my adding humor to a humor page, humor that further elaborates the humor already present there in an on-topic way, constitutes adding "nonsense", "self-promotion", and "is spamming". Just so that I can avoid these nasty transgressions in the future, assuming I shan't be stoned to death in the interim and that there will be future, of course. Because, you see, assuming good faith, which is what odder and Vito have failed to do in my case (Vito persecutes me on noticeboards and stalks my edits throughout WMF projects, taking out mentions/red links as "self-promo" and "non-notable"), while odder tells me to never send him mail ever again (he is the OTRS and he gave me that email address in person in PM on IRC 2 days ago), and asks publicly on IRC #wikimedia-pl if I am "off my meds", end of quote, without being as much as publicly chastised, never mind, kicked off the channel or, as should happen, stripped of his bits as bureaucrat and sysop for acting not like one should. Because, dear Wikipedians, that sort of behavior cannot be brooked, and is beyond pale. I suggest Vito redirects his efforts and deals with it.

Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 12:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. Adding my link that happens to be factual link to an actual lecture given on the subject of translating the poet to whose article I added it to, a link that enhances the article's external links, seems to be allowed explicitly within the COI write-up, no? I just read it there.

I must confess that the whole COI thing as conceived of and executed or persecuted in my case has me baffled, and that I understand it, and my transgressions, very poorly: I thought COI had to do with Sara Stierch working for WMF and drawing a salary while putting in favorable content into Wikipedia about a BLP person, while collecting $300 for doing so.

Now, I am not being paid for adding a sentence describing what Doug Hofstadter and I have published in Scientific American, or what I have over many years translated in contemporary Polish poetry, all pro bono work. Jesus.

So. Are you guys really thinking this through? And how is COI or spamming the same as adding on-topic HUMOR to a HUMOR page? It takes a very unfriendly reading of the situation to conclude that it does.

Please. Let sanity return. In any case, please advise me what you want me to do and not to do, specifically in the context of my edits -- and I have been editing here since 2002 anonymously and 2005 as Mareklug -- so, you know, chances are I am not the pernicious spammer and globally blockable offender the steward has me for, or the psychiatric case the OTRS handler/bureaucrat/sysop (on Commons) does.

...

Sincerely,

--Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. I am notable, of course, subject to future Article for Deletion proceedings. user:ToAruShiroiNeko is preparing my BLP for March 2014 unveiling. :) I am the first author to propose a motility-based artificial chemistry tiling for artificial life computation. See ALIFE1, Proceedings of the 1st Artificial Life Workshop, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1987, published as refereed book chapter by Santa Fe Institute Series in the Science of Complexity, Addison-Wesley, 1989, here as a link for your perusal in galley-format (pages seem out of order until you print them out and assemble them as a book): https://www.dropbox.com/s/q3sj0mnwy2mf0ha/ComMet_paper_ALIFE1%20reduced%20smallest%20size%20Adobe.pdf I am also notable as editor, poet, writer, and critic, but I will let others make that RS'ed. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mareklug: You shouldn't be inserting your own name into other articles. I don't think there's any call for administrative sanction here, but knock it off, ok? If you're all that and a bag of chips, someone else will eventually put your name in the articles where it needs to go. Just be patient. Garamond Lethet
c 14:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That was very sensibly put, Garamond Lethe. Thank you for lucidity. I can live with that. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Insults on IRC? Why don't you present them here as evidence? Oh, that's right, you can't. If you willingly participate in a corrupt abuse zone, then expect to get abused. Don't bother bringing it up here, because exposing anything that happens on IRC is forbidden by the WMF and its functionaries. They're institutionally wedded to it, despite fiercely denying that at every opportunity. — Scott • talk 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now now, IRC is not as bleak as you put it. I get a lot of joy out of it, and helping people there, or sparring, as the case may be, and getting help myself, as today from Nick Burse about cleaning up noise from a dusty scan. Be that as it may be, I only object to nonlinear behavior: odder gives me tons of email addresses, including his own, in PM, and is generally friendly, only to turn opposite in a span of literally a day (!), removes on-topic humor from a humor page (!!!! calls it nonsense. Well, fuck me with a stick, is it not nonsense to begin with? It is FUNNY nonsense, and I made it funnier. But no..... it is "nonsense". :/ -- and then goes over the line acting not like a Wikimedian with bits but an immature idiot -- insulting me as a mental case off my meds.... I dunno... this is... strange. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Garamond Lethe: unfortunately there seems to be an ongoing parodying, so we will likely have to deal with that matter in a few weeks. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vito, what are you saying????? Are you claiming now that I edit by proxy and sock? You have no evidence for that if only because I never have. Vito, wake up! --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• The COI is pretty clear in one article I've looked at, Agnieszka's Dowry. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  Like I already said, I have no clue what is this COI you speak of, except when Sarah takes (paltry) bling for inserting positive spiel normale into some BLP. Please note that Agnieszka's Dowry, the article, was written, submitted, and more or less sourced several years before COI became the in-vogue scarlett letter at Wikipedia. We are the knights who say COI. We seek shrubbery. Please keep your head about you, as in try to assess my contributions in context. Please do not do so anachronistically, i.e. by engaging in time travel, ok? Ok. Carry on. For what it is worth, I promise not to add Marek Lugowski to anything ever again. I do not promise to stick around as a member of the Community, however. There are oodles of other causes that beg for my resources like dogs for bacon, and there is even a new suit dress-up job as an insurance sales agent (I always fancied cross-dressing, you know, geek in a $650 J.o.s suit) about to become licensed by state of Illinois and immediately hired by a certain company with name rights to a great basketball arena. So... Vito, that one is on your dime. And on yours, dear unstable odder. Btw, two dimes make two bits, in case you furriners did not know that. I serve to edify. Always. --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your conflict of interest is obvious. You're the editor of that magazine. Bringing up some other person means nothing, and when the article was submitted means nothing either. Scarlet letter or not, a conflict of interest has always been a conflict of interest, though I will grant you the "more or less" in "more or less sourced", and I assessed that contribution as I would any other. Good luck with the new job. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, kind sir. I certainly did not mean to imply that you are a Vito or, gack, an odder. You have been a true gentleman, if not exactly a scholar. :) I hope to tell my new clients about Wikipedia, so they may come in and edit some. --Mareklug ^talk 04:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please knock it off with the insults, a stream of people here have told you very broadly what Vito and Odder have told you elsewhere, surely you can find something else to focus on now. COI fairly broadly interpreted states you shouldn't really be editing your own article or articles you're heavily involved with, but it doesn't stop you helping out on talk pages and speaking to interested editors, pointing them in the right direction and telling them where to find sources. Hopefully you can help write these articles without actually writing these articles, if that makes sense. Nick (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I cannot understand how some childish insults might result in a more convincing matter. I already said crosswiki spam is not tolerated (though incivility seems to be sometimes regrettably accepted) there shouldn't be anything left to say. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigpoliticsfan and WP:NOTVAND

Bigpoliticsfan (talk · contribs) is consistantly calling things vandalism that are either WP:NOTVAND, content disputes, or just plain good edits. Here are some examples, dated only from after my first warning to this user 19:52, 15 February 2014. [138], [139], [140], [141].

There are numerous other examples, the minority of which can be found on this user's talk page.

Thank you for your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on each of those four links. for three of them, I see no mention of vandalism. The fourth is this. You may be right about this one: saying in the context of a description of the weather that "record low colour= violet" looks less like vandalism than mere adolescent silliness. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think modifying a non-used parameter in a template is vandalism, given that it's obviously not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You don't think "last clean version," states that there was vandalism? Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that "last clean version" need imply vandalism. It may instead come before bad edits that were well intended. I may screw up a (Wikipedia-unrelated) file on my own computer in some way and then revert to the "last clean version" I have backed up somewhere; this wouldn't mean that I'd vandalized anything. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you review the specific changes that caused the earlier version to be "dirty?" Do you think those edits caused "dirtiness?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to allow Bigpoliticsfan to respond to this first, but I have to agree with Hipocrite that a Twinkle revert to "last clean version" is implying vandalism. Generally speaking, when we revert an edit on Wikipedia that was good faith, it's customary to note that we're reverting a good faith (but mistaken) edit. Not mentioning anything in an edit summary is an implication that what we're reverting was a (willfully) improper edit of some kind. The default implication, unless clearly stated otherwise, for a revert is that you're removing something "bad", generally vandalism. This isn't just an observation on my part, WP:REVEXP makes the same suggestion. If nothing else, Bigpoliticsfan seriously needs to improve communication when making reverts, but I suspect that this editor is actually misidentifying vandalism which is disruptive behavior. -- Atama頭 22:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Bigpoliticsfan and removed talk page access for referring to an edit as "dirty". I'm joking, obviously. Surely there must be something better to do on Wikipedia than hound new editors and issue threats on their talk page if they don't comply with your demands to reword their edit summaries? I would say that it is Hipocrite who needs to improve communication when issuing warnings to users. In my experience, threatening to get a user's permissions removed is a great way to get someone to completely ignore you. Perhaps a better strategy would be to calmly and politely explain why it's important to avoid mislabeling an edit as vandalism, and point out the harm that such behavior than cause, rather than busting the door down with your gun drawn and your Internet Police badge prominently displayed, shouting "Ok buddy, where's the vandalism here? How about here? You better answer me now or I'm gonna take you downtown to the station!" ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How long after my first ignored question about what vandalism they were identifying did I threaten to go after their advanced permissions, exactly? How many months and ANI trips do you need before you aren't "new" anymore? Where did I ask anyone to block anyone? I think you've jumped to conclusions. Oh - and don't worry - the erroneous reverts continue, so the "new" user in question has succesfully gotten over my Internet Policing. I'll leave that to the professionals like you in the future. I forgot what a cesspit this place was. Hipocrite (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression of Bigpoliticsfan is that theu editor is a very eager, very well-meaning editor who often acts too hastily. I got that impression by noting the numerous warnings on their talk page. Initially, a notice about prematurely adding information to an article before it was verified by a reliable source. Then, a rash of page protection requests that were all declined, as well as inappropriate (but well-meaning) comments made to RFPP requests. Then, a large number of GA nominations (labeled as "drive-by" nominations) which eventually led to a block warning (but no block). Next, a number of inappropriate deletion tags that led to multiple warnings. This recent spate of inaccurate reverts is just the latest round of mistakes from someone who has leaped into the fray before learning the ropes. I also see that this is at least the third AN/I thread about Bigpoliticsfan's disruptive contributions to the encyclopedia, all of which stem from eagerly jumping into something without knowing what they're doing.

Again, this is all well-intentioned. And I think Bigpoliticsfan is trying their best to improve the encyclopedia in one way or another. With experience, hopefully there will be less of a "bull in a china shop" result. There's just a lot of mistakes made in many areas over this editor's 8 month editing period. Maybe a good solution for them is to pick just one area to start with, take it slowly, take the time to learn the policies and guidelines related to their area of interest, and build up some expertise in that area before moving on? That's what I tried to do, with PRODs, CSDs, AfDs, mediation, COI, and other specialty areas. I don't think they need any punitive action, just some guidance and time. I certainly hope that they take the time to participate in this discussion. -- Atama頭 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't glance at "the specific changes that caused the earlier version to be 'dirty'". You gave four diffs; I quickly looked at each. Only one mentioned vandalism, and this characterization was indeed debatable. Bigpoliticsfan is using Twinkle. I have never used this myself, but Wikipedia:Twinkle tells us Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Aha! It's an anti-vandalism tool, therefore its very use implies that what it's used on is vandalism. So you may be onto something here. But wait: the very first sentence of that tells us Twinkle is a set of JavaScript functions that [assists] in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks, and to help [users] deal with acts of vandalism. The implication here is that Twinkle is not only for vandalism. ¶ Yet I one-third agree with Atama: people should give a reason for reverting when this reason isn't blazingly obvious. And I two thirds agree with Scottywong. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple things to add... This editor doesn't have rollbacker rights, their only extra right given is "reviewer", and that was granted yesterday (though the admin granting the right suggested caution). I don't think Twinkle rights can be revoked since it's a gadget, not a user right (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm also worried that Bigpoliticsfan still hasn't participated in this discussion despite being active recently. I know that they did respond to Hipocrite's concerns with a promise to be careful but they haven't stopped their behavior. Again, my worry is that they are acting too hastily and without caution, they'll admit to mistakes but I believe the mistakes are made because they are trying to do too much too quickly with too little experience. I believe that 5 good edits and no mistakes is better than 50 good edits and 5 mistakes. -- Atama頭 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

User talk:94.173.7.13 is currently blocked for 31 hours as a result of an edit warring boomerang at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sabrebd & User:camerojo reported by User:94.173.7.13 (Result: IP blocked), but continues to post from another IP account as User talk:93.186.31.96. However, this other IP account predates the block as does another IP account at User talk:93.186.23.100. I am not sure if this counts as block evasion, but if the editor can just avoid it through using multiple accounts then the block has no force.--SabreBD (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

94.173.7.13 is assigned to Virgin Media in Edinburgh, and the other IPs are assigned to Research in Motion UK. He is editing using a Blackberry, which is assigning him a new IP each time he accesses the site. I have blocked 93.186.23.100/20 for 24 hours for block evasion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK many thanks for looking into this.--SabreBD (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

Could anyone check on edits made by user User:87.9.140.95 Seems a bit disruptive – religiously motivated? --Catflap08 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here - there's nothing disruptive in these edits (many are just link fixes), and I see no particular attempt to push a religious agenda. Can I ask why you didn't make any attempt to discuss this with the editor before bringing the issue here, as the notice at the top of this pages asks you to? Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I informed the user as said above. Simply deleting information out of articles, pictures graphics especially dealing with islam is a bit strange I think. Normally one would discuss that on the talk page first. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, they were bold. If you revert, then you should discuss in on the article talkpage. As per the top of this page, if you have an issue with a user, you're supposed to try and resolve it directly with them before coming to this board, not just advise them after you filed here ES&L 12:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Gundulić

I am getting overrun on this article by several Croatian nationalists. Gundulić is listed among "100 Greatest Serbs" (100 најзнаменитијих Срба, Београд,1993.г.) by the Serbian Academy of Sciences, and his works (as are the works of other Old Ragusan writers) are considered part of Serbian literature by Matica srpska, which is the chief Serbian cultural institutions and has recently included Gundulić (among others) in their 200+-volume series of the most prominent Serbian writers from the earliest days to present. I've categorized added him also as a Serbian poet, and his language as Serbian, but my edits get reverted all the time [142] (also see the entire edit history). Gundulić himself to my knowledge never professed his ethnicity/nationality because at that time Croatian nation wasn't yet "constructed" and Republic of Ragusa was an independent entity. Older sources categorize him as a Serbo-Croatian or Serbian writer (such as 1911 Britannica), but after the dissolution of Yugoslavia Croatian side claims exclusivity on the entire Old Ragusan literature on the basis of territorial coverage (Dubrovnik is now in Croatia), while the Serbian side simply continues as it did before. This is simply POV-pushing by Croatian editors. Also: Croatian Wikipedia article claims that he was ethnic Croatian writer, while Serbian Wikipedia article claims that he was an ethnic Serb. Those two POV-s can be reconciled easily by dual categorization and dual language used in the infobox like in many other articles on writers of e.g. both Croatian and Serbian ancestry (or Serbs living in Croatia, or Croats living in Serbia), but Croatian editors insist that he's exclusively Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Awww poor you....but no really, on a serious note, you have opened this can of worms in the first place, so don't complain. There were several users who tried to reason with you on the talk page (including myself), clearly opposing the changes you were introducing and yet you continued to edit the article as you saw fit which then led to other users reverting you and the whole thing was ripe for potentially going completely bonkers, this is the reason why I have decided to request a full protection. Now it has been pointed out to you that Ivan Gundulic being classified as a Croatian writer is not only Croatian-POV, it is also the POV of most if not all other third party institutions, sources, encyclopedia's, etc. In fact there were three decent and credible sources for this classification Yale University, Columbia University and most notably Encyclopedia Britannica of which none of those were Croatian and yet you claimed they were [143]. In any case the Serbian institutions and the editions you mentioned are little more than political pamphlets. This is the chief reason why Croatian or Serbian institutions are largely avoided on these contentious issues and third party (preferably English language sources) are sought after.

Now on a completely different matter I would like to point out the sheer incivility of this user he showed on the talk page (something for which he was already warned before [144]) accusing, chiefly me and then everyone else who doesn't agree with him, being "Croatian nationalists": [145] [146] [147]. Then he did a bit of Canvassing calling Slovenski Volk to come help him with these "Croatian nationalists" (seen here)....BTW Slovenski Volk is a user recently topic-banned from Balkan-related subjects per WP:ARBMAC. Then he also started a similar charade on Roger Joseph Boscovich, introducing dubious sources and even removing content without any previous discussion or consensus. I mean this goes on and on and on...

And last but not least. I strongly believe this user is actually a sockpuppet of PaxEquilibrium, a user who had over 70 different sockuppets, assuming different ethnic identities, even arguing with himself and so on. I have presented this case on [148] where you can see the link I posted where he explicitly admits (to yet another blocked user from en.Wiki) that he is "Ivan Štambuk = Pax Equilibrium". This is almost all too much for me to comprehend but with this recent behavior of a user I considered fairly reasonable, I am now convinced more than ever he indeed is (as he confessed) a sockpuppet of Pax. Shokatz (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I cannot edit directly on the articlel but Ivan might have a point. I actually dont know the figure in question too well; but his remarks on ethnicity in 16th century Dalmatia are right on the mark. Ethnicity was not yet nationalized, nor was it mutually exclusive. Back then, one could be a Croat, a Serb, a Dalmatian, or plain Slav, all at once, or one at a time, depending on what the cnotext of interaction called for. Editors need to suppress nationalistic urges of "owning" prominent historic allow all points of view (with support) to be expressed. And Shokatz, there is nothign wrong with Ivan asking other editors for advice or opinions. That is how Wikipedia should work when there is dispute. One needn't assume that the people he approaches will a priori agree with him Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Shokatz: I'm not a sock of PaxEquilibrium and the checkuser analysis will prove that false because I have nothing to hide. It's just your nationalist paranoia manifesting, seeing conspiracies everywhere.

Regarding the rest of your argument - note that none of it invalidates mine. Gundulić remains treated as a Serbian writer by Serbian sources and that's a fact. It doesn't matter how many other sources treat him as Croatian writer. SANU and Matica srpska are top Serbian cultural institutions and their POV cannot be ignored. That you chose to ignore them by lying that they are fringe sources only demonstrates why you shouldn't be editing that article in the first place because you are too biased.

Regarding Bošković - yes I am removing that content - for arguments see the talk page,this is not the place to discuss it.

Regarding Slovenski Volk - I contacted him for a completely different reason, and didn't ask him to get involved into this discussion at all. Anyone can see that by reading the message I left. So, you're simply lying for no reason. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk.Some German poets and writers were born when Germany didn't exist as a country nor did modern Germans feel as a Germans back then but they are still categorized as a German poets and writers today. Scrosby85 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also Ivan Štambuk acts sometimes like he owns half of the articles.Erasing whole sections and in explanations he just writes "This doesn't matter".It doesn't matter to him but to 5 or 6 other editors it matter.But of course he calls them Croatian nationalists just because they have different opinion.Also in 2010 he reverted some Serbian editor who was claiming that Gundulic was Serbian writer into Croatian.4 years later he changed his mind.For him only good source is Britannica from 1911 and he refuses to look at modern day Britannica and what they think of Ivan Gundulic today.Or Yale University like user Shokatz presented above.He doesn't use Consensuses,he erases whole sections,whole biographies,putting links and sources what he think are the best and so on.He is not an angel you know. Scrosby85 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I have not followed that article at all, nor do I know the figure (alas my western upbringing). However, Germany is a different situation, because whilst back then one was a Brandenberger, a Prussian, a Hessian, etc, they eventually all became Germans. So to call a 15th century Hessian a "German", whilst arguably slightly anachronistic, is not that controversial. But in southern Dalmatia, and the environs of Dubrovnik, the political situation was far more complicated - with a checkerboard of ecclesiastical jurisdictions as well as frequent changes in power - Croat, Serb/ Raska, Duklja, not to mention foreigners Hungary, Venice, Byzantium, etc.. Often these writers primarily expressed their indigenousness ie Slavness or "Illyrianness" contra the often foreign powers stationed there (hungary, venice etc). They were less concerned with smaller-scale identities. And remember who the "Croats" were in pre-modern times, esp in the Middle Ages - they were bans and zhupans of northern Dalmatia who were allied an accepted the king as a primum inter pares. They were a social group, an oligarchic "click' which held power, and continued to, even after the Hungarins invaded.

back to the topic - sounds like what is the issue is reliable sources - and what they say. Now , a nonpartisan account might not exist for this individual figure. The next best thing is to use a source which describes the identities , in general, of 16th century inhabitants of South Dalmatia. Whilst I cannot edit the article , I'd be more than happy to provide references to you all to use in turn. Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Scrosby85 Yes the history every other nation should be treated that way, in the context of scientific nihilism which explains emergence of collective identities through convergence of historical factors. The problem is that that is not usually an tabu subject for other nations. Balkans editors for some reason personalize such explanations and see them attacks on their identities. It's not also merely an issue of different opinions - much of it is government propaganda without a shred of evidence. You weren't taught in the Croatian primary and secondary school (as neither did I) that Gundulić was also a Serbian writer - but he is also classified as such regardless whether you accept it or not. NPOV policy requires us to represent all competing POVs. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk of course Croats were not taught that Gundulic is Serbian in schools.Serbs also didn't learn in their schools that he was Serbian.And today is also the case.On the other hand Gundulic's works are taught in Croatian schools and universities as part of Croatian literature and culture.I'm 100% sure that Gundulic is not taught as part of Serbian literature in Serbian schools.Matica hrvatska for instance treat Ivo Andric as a Croatian poet but if u ask me he's not Croatian poet.He lived and worked in Belgrade and he identified in later life as a Serb.Is it from political reasons or because of his wife i don't know and it doesn't matter.So views of Matica hrvatska doesn't matter in that case.Identical as Matica srpska opinion doesn't matter in this case.What are you doing now in support of Slovenski Volk is ridicilous.You are now trying to add a source of some Michigan based writer who wrote a book about "Croatia" where he mentions "Croats" just once in his book.Instead he just write Slavs.And now to justify your views you are trying to say that there was no Croats in Dalmatia but Slavs.Shokatz explained everything in his post.I said it enough.You cry now as long as you want and seek help from your Wikipedia users. Scrosby85 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You cannot pick whose opinions matter and whose don't. Ivo Andrić is categorized as both Croatian and Serbian writer and so should Gundulić. Reasons don't matter at all because it's not up to us to question them. Our job is only to gather evidence from reliable sources, and that's it. I don't need to convince you or your fellow Croatian editor Shokatz of anything. You ignore Serbian side simply because you don't find their arguments convincing, for yourselves, personally. Not because they are "wrong" or something (you cannot be right/wrong with imaginary topics such as ethnicity or Serbian/Croatian "language"). So it essentially boils down to pushing a particular POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparing this with Ivo Andrić is mixing apples with oranges. Ivo Andric was a writer of the 20th century on whom we actually have primary sources on his perceived identity i.e. the direct copies of his documents like f.e. his records in the Jagiellonian University (where he declared as a Croat) and his identity card (where he declared as a Serb). Ivan Gundulic is on the other hand a completely different matter, he was born and lived in a city that is today part (as is the legacy of that city) of Croatia and he wrote in a dialect that is considered part of Croatian literature, Serbs didn't have such a secular literature at this period and wrote in a variant of Serbian Church Slavonic called Slavoserbian. Thus by all classifications he is considered a Croatian author as much as Dante Alighieri is considered a Italian author. Shokatz (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Side Comment: Um...if Slovenski Volk is topic-banned from Balkan-related things, they shouldn't be posting on this discussion. Unless their topic ban is only direct article editing? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

While this clearly touches on sensitive points of view on many different sides of national identity, it really only matters who has the strongest reliable sources to support their edits. If there is a question about a particular source, WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN are the proper forums. The only actionable offense I can see is if an editor is editing against consensus. In a very polarized subject like this, it could be that there is a conflict between what reliable sources say and what the consensus believes to be true which might be why no admins have waded into this discussion yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is both. The user who made this complaint is in fact the main instigator of this entire charade in the first place. He in fact supported the previous version completely and even helped to maintain it [149]. Now all of a sudden his opinion changed. He ignores the majority of sources, and by that I am talking about English language and other third party sources (not Croatian or Serbian sources which are clearly biased), and he also fails to acknowledge this fact by accusing others of being "Croatian nationalists" and not consenting to a consensus. I would also point out that I believe this is closely related to the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian discussion, since it seems that the recent changes regarding that issue these users have perceived as a sort of "green light". Reading the above discussion and especially the comment made by Joy, this is exactly the prime example of the "slippery slope" he is talking about. Shokatz (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

But you are Croatian nationalists. The only consensus which I see is the consensus among Croatian nationalists to ignore reliable sources which they don't like. You don't have any real counter-arguments against including Gundulić as Serbian writer. You keep ignoring the question of SANU and Matica srpska over and over again and making it look like as if the problem is with me. You go as far as inventing conspiracies about me being a sockpuppet of a Serbian editor. Your whole argument was that they are WP:FRINGE, which they obviously can't be. Serbian POV is completely ignored to satisfy your imperialist cultural appetites for classifying writers as "Croatian" who never thought or declared themselves as such. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess you miss my point. It seems like you are arguing about who has (or hasn't) a neutral point of view and the quality of your sources. There are specific noticeboards (WP:RSN and WP:NPOV) where these debates can occur and you can get a third opinion. AN/I is for conduct disputes and no one will tell you whether the subject of an article is Serbian or Croatian. That is a content dispute.

I recommend dropping the rhetoric and name-calling. If another editor is guilty of misconduct (and editing with a different point of view is not misconduct), briefly explain your case and present diffs/examples, this is not the forum to argue with each other. If this is an issue of edit warring, there is a noticeboard where you can report that. I hope this helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can recall it is you who deleted third party English language sources, it is you who is labeling other people "nationalists" (which BTW I consider extremely rude and offensive derogatory labeling) and it is you who keeps inventing these ridiculous conspiracies and then trying to present yourself as a victim. I didn't even revert you once, I was the one discussing with you on the talk page...remember? First of all, I actually agreed that we include the position of SANU and other (regardless of their obvious dubious and biased position which clearly represents extreme WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE) but that we keep the majority view of him being considered a Croatian writer, per overwhelming majority of English language sources, which you also so blatantly labeled "Croatian". Now either everyone who opposes you (and there are at least half a dozen people who have done so) is a "deranged Croatian nationalist" or perhaps it is you who is the problem. But keep up with the ad hominem and WP:PA. Shokatz (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're not talking to me, Shokatz, because I've never edited these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I was replying to Ivan Štambuk and yet another of his personal attacks towards me. Shokatz (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're a bit thin-skinned Shokatz. Your fellow User:Scrosby85 called me "mentally ill" for pushing anti-Croatian POV and I didn't feel the least insulted. I removed unreliable sources, namely other encyclopedias which furthermore had their articles written by Croatians specifically advancing Croatian POV. Calling SANU and Matica srpska "fringe" only shows how biased you are. English Wikipedia does not discriminate sources by language FYI - even if 100% English language sources from the time immemorial claimed that Gundulić were a Croatian writer, Serbian POV would still merit inclusion. Why? Because simply the topic is too obscure and Serbian sources constitute at least half of the relevant scholars. Actually more than half given that there are more Serbians than Croatians, and that pretty much all of the older literature historians from Dubrovnik such as Medo Pucić, Milan Rešetar, Pero Budmani etc. were in fact Serbs, and considered Gundulić Serbian. So it's a major POV omission. Anyway I posted a notice at WP:NPOVN so we can end the discussion here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute indeed, but given the topic area, one good thing can come from having this brought up here - it might allow the uninvolved admins to see what you all have been up to. Just the level of discussion to which you have stooped is sufficient grounds for censure, an abject failure to observe the rules of WP:ARBMAC, despite the fact you've all been here long enough to be able to recite it by heart... Admin leniency is clearly being casually taken advantage of - it's high time to dole out some blocks and try to interrupt what appears to be a broken model of behavior. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem at the list of African-American inventors and scientists article

A user editing under an IP address (User talk:69.158.28.97) is edit warring with User:Dagko. Dagko reverted the edits and explained why. He or she has accused Dagko of being a "racist Afrocentrist." The person accused me of the same thing after I asked about the edits, even though I never edited the article and I stumbled across it from another article. I checked out it's history tab just to be curious. I decided to ask the person why he or she made the edits (it was probably a bad decision) and had my own idea of why. We had an excxhange of words and the user made this comment:

I'm the bigot? you are a pathetic racist Afrocentrist who is intentionally lying about history to make up for the complete objective lack of black achievement in comparison to other races.

No one else feels the need to lie and manipulate history like Afrocentrists.

--69.158.28.97 (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I know you shouldn't call people names, but with a comment like that, this person sounds like a bigot to me. What do you think should be done about this? B-Machine (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Depends. They need a warning about [{WP:CIVIL]] at the very least. A block might be in order. If they haven't made any beneficial edits, I'd just go with indef, otherwise, 48 hours. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty horrendous personal attack and shows significant bias. Have they been notified of this conversation? Has an admin delivered a warning? I don't see how this comment could be seen as anything other than a personal attack of the worst kind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a serious personal attack which shows not only bias, but possibly bigotry. We have to be severe about this kind of attack in my opinion. The talk page has deteriorated into back and forth mudslinging which is not useful in any way(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

I've semi-protected the page for now. I find the IP to be distasteful and aggressively destructive, so if someone wants to block it, I'm ok with it. Everybody, keep your cool. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for two weeks (which roughly matches the time that the editor has been disruptive). Hopefully that will be enough to motivate them to move on. For the record, I don't care what race you're targeting, I dislike any racially-motivated personal attacks on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now Savakk joins the fray: [150], [151], [152].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Savakk's contributions and edit summaries, he/she and User talk:69.158.28.97 seem to have the same anti-black, anti-Jewish, stance on viewing the world. I'd say this should be moved to SPI but I don't think checkusers will match up registered accounts with IP accounts. I don't think it's going out on a limb to guess they are the same user especially when they make identical edits on List of African-American inventors and scientists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why Savakk's not indeffed. 59 edits, and they're all like this: [153] or like this: [154].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why either, so I have blocked them. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to do anything than push their racist agenda. GiantSnowman 22:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good block! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't block accounts from logging in with this IP to see if there would be a registered account popping up that we could identify. Now I'm glad I did. -- Atama頭 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everybody. B-Machine (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC) It should be noted that I complained about an anti-Semitic post that Savakk and Inayity made here and here, and Muslim administrator Malik Shabazz block me and censored my complaint from the page history. The Jews and the slave trade article is dominated by anti-Semites and black supremacists/Nation of Islamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.151.186.132 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that page history, I explicitly endorse that block, too. Motes and beams and all that. Sorry, for admins only: One of the "complaints" is here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Talk page

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

---

withdrawn - please archive or delete. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cjrhoads is an inexperienced Wikipedian although she has had an account for a few years, with an enthusiasm for qigong and for refactoring and deleting others' comments on Talk.

She is an advocate for qigong, and has recently taken an interest in the qigong article. She is coming very close to violating WP:ADVOCACY but the reason I am here is that she made deletions of several sections of the Talk page.

Deletion today 1 39K dif Deletion today 2 15K dif Deletion today 3 5.5K dif

My last warning to her: 23:26, 17 February: dif

A little background: CJ decided to set up idiosyncratic "straw polls" and has insisted on keeping them in a certain format. When she has determined they became too cluttered, she copied them and pasted them into a new section, removing what she considered clutter. This has led to sprawl and disjointment that I and other another user, User:Roxy the dog have objected to. My last warning, linked above, came in response to her last one. This morning I had asked her to delete the last one of these that she had created (which I had commented on, only to say that I was not participating) after she had gotten permission from the only other editor who had added anything (dif) and she completely ran away with it.

Past requests to stop and warnings to not mess with other editors' comments: me: 13:14, 17 February dif Roxy: 22:35, 16 February edit) (undo) (thank) dif

There are other warnings but the page has become such a sprawl that I cannot find them. Three warnings is plenty, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick note. I also had opened a COIN discussion with respect to her advocacy. This morning CJ posted there, saying that she is leaving Wikipedia and said that she was going to delete a bunch of stuff. dif. So, maybe no action needed. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And I just archived the sprawl so the links above will no longer work. Am withdrawing this altogether; it has already been a huge time suck. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This has been closed too soon for my contribution to this report by Jytdog. The effort that he put in to try to persuade CJ away from the darkside of the force quigong was superhuman. He deserves praise for the work he did, displaying extreme patience in the face of quite astonishing refusal to listen or understand. Now she has taken her ball away. I think she could have contributed well to wikipedia if she had learned to use the force. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

that is so nice of you to say. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple recreation of article deleted in AFD

Coffeeishott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to recreate an article that was deleted at an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Coffee). The user recreated the articles at:

• Carl Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carl W. Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carl W Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The issue has been discussed with him on multiple occasions (both with templates ([155]) and hand-written notes ([156], [157], [158])). — X96lee15 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

User has never participated in a discussion about the subject, just keeps recreating the article and blanking warnings. I'd suggest an indef block to prevent thhe continued disruption, see if that prods him to be communicative. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging following an AFD

Following an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of pogrom (2nd nomination) which ended in no consensus, the deletion nom is disruptively edit warring in a large number of tags to the top of the article, in order to ensure that all readers are aware of his personal displeasure with the article. Could someone take a look at this please? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wasted 10 minutes of my life taking a look at this. Now what do you want? --Malerooster (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, you are both now sitting right at 3RR. It's a good thing you've stopped at this point or either of you could be eligible for a bright-line block. And it's worth noting that the first person to bring the matter to the talk page was Zargulon.

Secondly, the notion that tags require a consensus to be placed on an article is absurd. The entire point of a tag is to state that there is a problem on an article, and often they aren't removed until there is a consensus reached that the tag is no longer required. You were correct in your insistence that the tags be explained; while many tags are self-explanatory, others are meaningless without some kind of context. But saying that a tag requires consensus is putting it backward; tags are often not removed until consensus is reached.

In any event, what do you want an admin to do, aside from protect the article or block the both of you (neither of which seem necessary since you're talking it out on the discussion page as you should)? -- Atama頭 20:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for taking the time.

It blows my mind that a nom who fails to get an article deleted can happily make a mockery of the whole afd by forcing a bunch of frivolous tags onto the article.

To my mind this is obviously disruptive and wilfully ignoring accepted behaviour norms.

But i guess you guys disagree.

Since you don't see it as disruptive, then i'm at the wrong place.

I respectfully disagree though - what is the point of all those people discussing at the afd. We're never going to get any better consensus view because you always get less editors at an article talk than at an afd, so there is no hope of those tags ever coming off.

Another grey area in wp which noone knows how to deal with.

Permanent frivolous tags because there is no mechanism to resolve it and the afd is now useless.

Thanks anyway.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, you're correct. "Tag-bombing" can be seen as disruptive, and your request for an explanation was proper. But I don't see this as tag-bombing, these tags at least came from comments at the AfD, rather than from whole cloth (and I understand there was no "consensus" for adding the tags established at the AfD, nor would that be the place to gather such consensus, but the discussion there at least "inspired" them). I've created articles before, and I understand the feeling you get when someone slaps tags on your article. But the proper procedure is to resolve the concerns that brought about the tags, it's the same process that you go through in a content dispute. The article you created is unusual in both structure and concept. It doesn't read like a straight-forward encyclopedia article. So I understand the concerns. But clearly, the article is not without value, if it was it wouldn't have survived AfD. It looks like Andy and yourself are having a proper discussion about at least some of the concerns, and I hope that you can have a positive discussion with Zargulon. If not, there are options to help, I've always found the steps at WP:DR to be helpful. Oh, and don't take these to be "permanent" tags. There are no permanent tags, the whole concept is a self-contradiction. If it's impossible to remove a tag, then either the tag is incorrectly applied, or the article is beyond repair and requires deletion. I'm confident that you can resolve these issues, and I wish you luck. -- Atama頭 23:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

どうもありがとう! I greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments. This place can drive us crazy sometimes.... Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

どういたしまして. :) -- Atama頭 00:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On a related point, I just found this thread Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_27#1929_Palestine_riots from a couple of years ago.

This is when I was educated by an experienced admin that "tags are just like most everything else here at WP, subject to being added or disputed on the basis of consensus." I took the opposite view at that time, but slowly came round. Now I don't know what to believe. This ambiguity re how to interpret the tagging rules leads to lots of unnecessary disputes.

Anyway, さようなら for now! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam only account

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

---

I've previously reported Veemalaysia (talk · contribs) at WP:spam and no action was taken. Every single edit of this user is to add links relating to www.virtualmalaysia.com . This user should be blocked. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you reported the user to WP:AIV? Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Sopher99

This user has repeatedly [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] added towns to the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map without giving a single source, as it is required (and he knows it, as he had been editing that map for months). When he has been asked to either remove them or give sources to back its inclusion on the map, he refused, reverting the removal of that towns [165], with the excuse that another user (User:Barcaxx1980, who is a newcomer to WP) has also added towns without sources, as if someone doing something wrong gives green light to the rest of users to follow that path. For that reason, and due to the long history of breaking the WP edit policy and disruptive conduct by this user, I request a new block on him. I think its one of the first times I fill one of these reports, so sorry if I make any error. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your signature is REQUIRED to point to either your talkpage or userpage, which it currently does not. Could you please fix that before making any further edits on the project DP 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything I have done in that regard is in good faith. No one complained about Barcaxx's edit style which I took up, not on the article's talkpage or on his or my talkpage. If HPUNX has an issue he can just as easily take it up on the article's talkpage, as all users (including myself) have been doing for months on end now.

It should be further known that if there is a general agreement for a fix among users (almost always settled on a talkpage) no particular source for such edits are required. In my case I did in fact use a source, the wikimapia, to give an approximate location of the villages I added. For whatever reason HPUNX has decided to omit that fact in his complaints. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All comprobable false allegations, one by one. First, as it can be seen on User:Barcaxx1980 talk page, both User:Hanibal911 and me warned him that he couldnt add towns to the map without giving sources, so there were people who complained about it. Second, in the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map talk page can be seen that I twice pointed that towns were added without any source, so suggesting that I have resorted to the administrators board without raising the issue in the talk page is simply a lie. Finally, another comprobable invention, there's no such general agreement among users for adding towns to the map without a source, proof of that is other users reverting other adds for not being sourced [166] (and the reverted user didnt behave like Sopher99, but tried to find sources to back his claim). Also, claiming that alleged agreement has the same logic as saying that an agreement has been reached among the editors of an article to add content without source. Clearly, a severe breach of WP edit policy. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx's talkpage has Hanibal instructing him not to use the al-mayadeen as a source. He doesnt mention his other edits.

Regarding your usage of the talkpage, as seen here, its just you cursing out Al-Hanuty for suggesting the use of scholars on twitter and a quick denouncement of me as a user... all two or three hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that apart from the lies exposed above, this user have a blindness problem:

• Proof of both User:Hanibal911 and me warning User:Barcaxx1980 about his wrong edits (According to Sopher99, quote "He doesnt mention his other edits"):[167]
• Proof of me raising the issue of adding of towns to the map without sources (and receiving no answer): [168]

Again, you have been exposed.--HCPUNXKID 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you made one warning on the 7th and never got back to it. For your information Barcaxx continued through the 12th with those edits, almost entirely uninterrupted. Like-wise after seeing everyone was fine with it - ie the other 9 users that edit the page - I took up to add more villages. And guess what? Everyone was fine with it - save for you.

So it looks like did consult the talkpage, which I clearly missed. But my point resurfaces even with that - no one responded to your concerns, solidifying the fact your the only one complaining. Sopher99 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr.Admin,I would like to inform you that editor hannibal911 has added cities without a source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of us have - and that's my point. HPUNX is calling me out on edits everyone but him is fine with and which he made no real effort to consult other users about this. Sopher99 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, unless your definition of "many" is two persons (Barcaxx1980 & you).--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Admins the editor Alahanuty should be punished for the defamation in my address since if you look my history of editings you can see that I am never edit without specifying the source. Although the user Alahanuty made edits using data from blogs and messages in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A source does not need to be available online, or in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A block or ban is not punishment, it is prevention, I hope you will understand that. Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban. Sopher has had the chance to refute but he hasn't. I have come accross such misrepresentations by this editor before and I think a block or topic ban would be in line with our policies on encyclopedic and verifiability principles. Pass a Method talk 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block - I have been active on Syrian pages. I have replaced dead links, filled references. Got those pages on my watchlist. It's usual that Sopher99 can be seen as a lone editor opposing numerous other editors and everytime I would find it. OccultZone (Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing the pages for around 3 years, and if you check the edit count per person for the Syrian Civil War, I have the top count, more than dozens, perhaps numbers exceeding 100 other users. It is only natural that in such a polemical issue like the Syrian civil war, that other users will find some sort of gripe with me over time and group to complain. Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. I agree to other editors. This man is destroying the map in purpose. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support topic-ban, obviously we cannot permit adding information without sources. Once is careless, but this user has gone way beyond "once". That said, I wonder if a topic ban from the "Syria" topic might not be a better way to proceed, at least until the user can demonstrate they are compliant and comfortable with our requirements on verifiability? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Comment both sides did the same thing,so if sopher99 is to be blocked then hannibal911,should be blocked also for doing the same thing.Alhanuty (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty you misrepresent facts as I did not added cities or villages using only the map Wikimapia I substantiated all my changes using data from Wikipedia. But you probably forgot as you edited on the basis of messages in Twitter and blogs. So you are disingenuous accusing me of being that i broken rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually the specific article we are talking about is actually a template map for towns of Syria. I have in fact used a source to add those, the wikimapia, which gives the approximate locations of real-life villages in Syria.

I am not too enthusiastic about this support list because 2 of the 4 users are wikihounders who have been quite antagonistic to me in the past. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very weak & desperate argument, there are dozens of Wikipedians who antagonize you, because of your continued irrational behaviour and POV-pushing, so that's your fault, not theirs...--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally what users here seem to be omitting, or just plain not checking, is that I did in fact use a source, wikimapia, to give the names and locations of the villages. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Which as you know is not an acceptable source - esepcially to make claims about specific "villages" being involved in a war ES&L 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the noticeboard - and no consensus exists for it being unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Wikimapia Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are really a professional on distorting facts. When we talk about a source needed to add towns to the map, we talk about a source wich states wich side of the Syrian Civil War has control of the town in question. You know that very well, so dont try to act innocently by saying that you use Wikimapia as a source, as that tool cannot be used to verify wich side has control of the towns, only to verify the physical position (lat. & long.) of the towns.--HCPUNXKID 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually on February 9th, when I first started adding the villages, I used this map provided by the BBC to detail which side it belongs to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 . The villages I have added since lines up with the map, and anyone who checked the source I gave could confirm it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding small particular towns basing on a map (wich is not really a BBC map, but from the Syria Needs Analisys Project, it seems you have a problem with sources) wich only includes some provincial capitals and not any town is a non-sense and very, very dubious, for not saying something worse. And also, if we accept the use of general maps to add particular towns, I could perfectly bring newer maps that contradicts several parts of that other map, for example, this (at least this one has towns on it) or even here in WP, this. Also, not to talk when maps contradicts articles wich state that one town is in control of any of the sides of the conflict. So, no, unless we want to mess up the Syrian civil war more than it is yet, we cannot use general country maps with no towns to add particular towns.--HCPUNXKID 20:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, only a few days ago,Sopher99 reverting another user's edit because the lack of source, it seems he had changed his mind very, very quickly...Also, this is the excuse he gave for his unsourced edits. Someone should explain him that two wrongs dont make a right...--HCPUNXKID 19:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

cpmment this user was previously under sanction and still edit warred (in 2014 itself). It was whitewashed. But he has POV concerns on this topic, repeatedly. Based on this alone as veteran editor should know that tit-for-tat is not alright. An extended 'topic ban is in high order.Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99's editing of other contributors posts on this page

I have just noticed that Sopher99 has made significant changes to multiple posts by other contributors in this edit [169] where words have been replaced with '***' - one such word being 'troll'. Unfortunately I can't seem to revert this gross infringement of talk page guidelines.

It seems to me that regardless of other issues, this act of stupidity alone is quite sufficient grounds for an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, he replaced the words "troll" (and derivatives thereof) with "***", as well as "Devil's" (of which the only use was User:The Devil's Advocate's sig), all in the process of fixing a typo. I'm not sure this is intentional, tbh. ₆an⁶sh₆ 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I saw something on VPT awhile back about something similar and it turned out to be some sort of plugin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, this happened to Sopher before due to some plugin, and they were advised to not edit Wikipedia if they could not get it to stop DP 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have three or four different word filters. I forgot they were on. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You have an edit filter that replaces the word 'troll' with '***' in the text provided for editing? What is this filter called, and is this a default replacement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few, such as "Web-Filter Pro" and "Simple profanity filter" - their chrome extensions. I forgot they alter wikipedia editing text, but I turned them off now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with AndyTheGrump, this user thinks he can do everything he want without consequences, and it seems that previous time-limited blocks hadnt make him change his behaviour.--HCPUNXKID 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. My time limited blocks were for violations of the 1 revert rule. I have since stopped even approaching a situation that would lead to a revert violation. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

False again, what you have done is learn how to evade the 1RR rule without being punished, something very different...--HCPUNXKID 17:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to show me an instance? Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher think you should honestly admit that often were wrong. But you persistently trying to prove a point and I think it is not constructive. You find it easier to blame someone than to admit their mistakes. But I think it solve the admins who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did I blame someone else? No really, show me one point on this page where I blamed someone else for wrongdoing against wikipedia editing policy Sopher99 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx? No, I only said that users were fine with the edits he made, despite initial concerns on Feb 7th that were never re-adressed onward

HPUNXKID? No, I only said that he was the only one complaining about the edits I made, and little effort to consult me on his concerns, save for 2 sentences on the talkpage that no-one responded to and he never got back to. Thats not a breach of policy and not the cause of the problem.

So tell me again, who am I blaming for the problem? No-one, because my point is there is no problem, just a lapse in judgement about the construction of a template map. Sopher99 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you just had to to talk with the editor Barcaxx1980 and try to explain to him how need edit. If you look at his talk page then you will see what I tried to explain to him how need to properly edit . But he still newcomer unlike you . But you did not try to talk to him and just started to add the citys and villages without identifying the source. Although unlike you, he in most cases use some sources maybe he not always was right but he is new to this actually unlike you or other experienced editors. But all decide the admins because only they can say who is right and who is wrong. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sopher, so your filters have apparently played Emily Post all over ANI. I'm surprised at your resentful and unapologetic attitude when this was pointed out; rather as if it was somebody else's fault. Why the ©@£$∞§=)(/&% don't you simply go back over the noticeboard and, you know, fix what happened? Especially the unlinking of The Devil's Advocate's sig. For another time, I strongly suggest section editing. It has many advantages at this busy board, and will presumably also prevent bowdlerizing filters from running amok all over it. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

ummm I'm not unapolegetic or resentful. And please tell me, where did I blame someone else for this? I blamed google chrome extensions for this. I don't think those count as people. To be honest I don't know where the changes were made, but now that I turned the filters off things appear to be normal. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should ask Google Chrome to fix it? All the replacements of words with asterisks still remain on the page. AndyTheGrump posted the diff that shows where the replacements are above, but here it is again. Please click on it, scroll down it and see the changes you made, and, I suggest, edit ANI a section at a time to fix them. You should stop dragging your feet. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

Her calling Barcaxx1980 the one responsible because he is doing it (Giving unsourced material) is like "The pot calling the kettle black." I think she is just trying to blame someone else, because, "If Barcaxx1980 jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Barcaxx1980 is not to blame. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcaxx1980 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 February 2014

WP:OWN Concerns On Rupert Sheldrake Page

The Rupert Sheldrake page has become a particularly hostile place to edit, and not just because its controversial nature includes a high standard of evidence. The problem is that editors like vzaak and Barney the barney barney are treating this page like their own private soapbox to promote their POV, embodying WP:OWN, violating WP:CIVIL by being condescending or outright hostile and utterly rejecting honest attempts to improve a very tricky page. I have posted to Vzaak's and Barney^3's talk pages to try to resolve the issue, but as is mentioned before this has not worked historically.

As I feel there is still plenty to do on the Sheldrake page, I went in to see if I could bring some compromise with balanced, moderate edits backed by solid sourcing/explanations. After getting no feedback from my talk page proposals I went ahead and adjusted them, requested feedback and proposals if anyone had other ideas. The result was a wall of text full of scolding, warnings and declarations about my ignorance in the matter, accompanied by reverts of practically everything I’d changed, even the grammar corrections. The reasons for these reverts were convoluted and my attempts to address those reasons were ignored (ie. a punctuation revert was explained by a post of MOS:LQ despite my pointing out I had actually corrected a violation of it). A recurring theme was an insistence that any edit by me required my addressing all their demands and getting permission, while they consistently ignored my concerns and edited/reverted without any attempt at consensus. I continued to try to work toward some sort of resolution that fit WP:BLP standards and still addressed all the points they brought up, but every compromise has been summarily rejected and any work reverted to preserve Vzaak’s POV. Here are some related diffs:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594423326&oldid=594335472 (Vzaak here insinuates that I am a proxy user due to editing this topic. This is significant given the high number of editors who have been accused and blocked by vzaak for being "socks" or "proxies")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300294&oldid=595275653 (Here Vzaak warns me against making any changes to the article unless there is no argument on Talk, AFTER Vzaak made repeated changes to the article with no consensus)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594471532&oldid=594468825 (other editors arguing that changes should be made. Vzaak made superficial word changes that did not address the actual repetition of quotes)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vzaak&diff=595482595&oldid=595171376
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595300708&oldid=595274343 (Reversed all changes, including grammatical ones that were correct under the very policy Vzaak used to justify the revert)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=595430975&oldid=595422218 (revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak, ignored detailed description of reasons on talk page, extended far beyond personal “likes/dislikes”)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=594707680&oldid=594469184 (there was no clear resolution on Talk, misrepresents “redundancy” as problem of simple word repetition, instead of repeating the exact same quote twice)

Barney^3 then weighed in, misrepresented my arguments and proceeded to write condescending ad-hominem insults on my Talk Page. For some reason he chastised me at length for fallacies and arguments I'd never advocated, written or supported. Here are some supporting diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The reason I’m bringing up what would otherwise just be a case of dispute resolution is the fact that this behavior is part of a long-term trend of hostility to alternative opinions, even when they are reasonable, neutral and supported by policy/sources. By systematically reverting edits, reprimanding editors and even harassing those who persist, Vzaak, Barney^3 and a few others have created such a toxic environment that no one else is able to make meaningful progress on the page that they’ve staked out. Whether this is intentional or not is a complex question, but what is certain is that this conduct violates the spirit of WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:CON, WP:HARASS, WP:IMPROVE, to name a few. In particular the feeling seems to be that WP:BLP is completely subordinate to WP:FRINGE, even though it is a biography page, not a theory page. The consequences have been serious and real, resulting in the driving off or aggravated blocking of a large number of otherwise qualified and well-intentioned editors (that in particular may be a larger problem than can be resolved on ANI, I fear).

In addition, Vzaak has made it clear that (until a very recent surge in mass-editing) they are a SPA: from Vzaak’s formation until Feb 11, 74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments were about Rupert Sheldrake. An indication of how heavily Vzaak has dominated the page is also referenced in the fact that Vzaak has made more edits to Rupert Sheldrake than the next three top editors combined. When you have such an emboldened Single Page Account, you end up with a Singe Account Page. That’s effectively what’s happened to Rupert Sheldrake.

This is a list of posts by editors who have given up/grown frustrated with this article, many of whom have had issues with Vzaak and Barney in the recent page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

These are posts by a very large number of editors, most of which have given up on the Sheldrage page, complaining of a long-recognized problem with POV and bias. These editors include David in DC, Iantresman, Lou Sander, The Devil's Advocate, and many others. Most of these posts feature Vzaak and Barney^3 prominently, establishing a pattern of conduct: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This behavior is hostile toward collaboration and detrimental to WP. Countless examples of this conduct establish that this is not an isolated occurrence. Over the past few months I've seen many hundreds of efforts at contribution end in frustration and over-zealous reverting, despite dozens of pleas for consensus, reasonability and accessibility (several of them made by myself). The reason the page is relatively static is not because it is particularly well-crafted, but because those who try to edit it are harassed until they leave, or, in many cases, are threatened by Vzaak and/or Barney^3 with sanctions of dubious legitimacy. This problem isn’t going away, but it is driving away people from WP.

I propose a topic ban on fringe articles against Vzaak and Barney^3 in order to remove the hostile and dominating environment that has developed there. Vzaak has proven to be a viable and useful editor in other areas, and I would not want to lose their future contributions to topics they are less opinionated about. Unless Vzaak is a SPA and has no purpose on WP except to advocate personal POV on fringe topics, this should be a relatively painless way to resolve months of conflict. Both Vzaak and Barney^3 have pursued such sanctions (and worse) against many other editors for far less, and the citations above indicate the sheer volume of disruption they are causing. The Cap'n (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by vzaak

I will skip the vague claims and move right to the numbered list of evidence. The "re" links are the original links given by Askahrc.

1. Proxying for Tumbleman, re[170].

Askahrc has been going around promoting Tumbleman's post-block claims.[171][172][173][174] The story is that Tumbleman admits to four socks while insisting that he had no IP socks. The claim is that this evidence, for example, is wrong. I daresay that I cannot imagine a more solid case of IP socking. The shared IP with the confirmed sock Philosophyfellow is damning enough on its own; when added to the other evidence, there just isn't any question. Moreover, the presumed admitted socks appeared both before and after the IP socks, and were blocked according to similar evidence. Callanec, since you handled this SPI would you please confirm that this claim by Tumbleman -- proxied here through Askahrc -- is not credible?

Askahrc is also saying that Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) and Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) were topic-banned because they were suspected socks of Tumbleman, a preposterous idea that was not mentioned in the respective AE requests, nor anywhere else that I am aware, except in Askahrc's recent activity.

Askahrc also relays Tumbleman's aspersions directed at me (echoed in Tumbleman's post-block socks) which somehow make it my fault that admins concluded that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE ("a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll")[175]. I don't think aspersions by proxy (of a blocked user, no less) are any more appropriate than direct aspersions.

Now Askahrc is taking up Tumbleman's first attempted change to the article, as described in the first paragraph of my statement in Tumbleman's AE[176].

2. Ignoring WP:BRD, re[177]

After Askahrc's bold deletion of a Sheldrake quote[178] (the same deletion Tumbleman made), the quote was eventually restored two days later by me. After failing to persuade others that the quote should be removed, he went ahead and replaced the quote with something else.[179] This was not a competent edit, as explained on the talk page -- the source does not connect morphic resonance to telepathy, nor does it even mention morphic resonance!

3. Askahrc's suggestion creates a positive change to the article, re[180]

Askahrc suggested the word "telepathy" was redundant in the lead. I incorporate this suggestion into the article.[181]

4. Askahrc posts a puzzling message to my talk page, re[182]

I don't know why this is mentioned. Maybe he thought I should have responded on Valentine's day?

5. Sources added to the article, re[183]

Askahrc said that remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect were "fringe science" and changed the article accordingly. I found that an extremely weird assertion, and added sources to back up the original wording.

I politely gave Askahrc a pointer to WP:LQ[184], because his edit[185], with comment "Grammar. Periods go within quotations." is against the MOS. The sources do not contain the periods that Askahrc inserted into the quotes.

6. Revert by IRWolfie-, re[186]

Whatever -- paranormal, parapsychological, don't care. In the talk page I said "parapsychological", but I was referring to the original wording "paranormal". This is not the kind of diff that warrants mention in an ANI.

7. Same as #3

Askahrc is strangely claiming that I misrepresented the redundancy problem as simple word repetition. Askahrc gave two sentences from the lead,[187]

• Sheldrake proposes that it is responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms".
• His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as telepathy and "the sense of being stared at"[7][8]

and said of these two sentences, "They seem completely redundant to me". I removed the redundancy, per Askahrc's suggestion.

IP troll

Askahrc says that someone -- who? -- is "reprimanding editors", with a link given to here. The person doing the "reprimanding" is this IP: 134.139.22.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP, which is in the same geolocation as Tumbleman, began a flurry of trolling activity four hours after Tumbleman's confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow was blocked.[188] Is this IP Tumbleman? It doesn't matter, it's just a troll. For all I know it could be Askahrc -- the IP is at California State University, Long Beach, Askahrc's own school, as stated in his user page.[189] I'm not claiming it is, I'm just saying that the troll could be anyone, and the matter has no relevance here.

Conclusion

Totally strange, to me. Askahrc makes claims like "74% of all article edits and 81% of all article Talk Page comments" are by me, but just links to my contributions. Moreover, the claim is objectively false because I am the #3 contributor of talk page comments.[190] Obviously, the #3 contributor cannot contribute 81% of comments!

I believe I have been extremely patient with Askahrc, offering extensive explanation and detail on the issue.[191]

Perhaps a community ban of Tumbleman would help avoid this kind of disruptive proxying. vzaak 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Askahrc is a single purpose account which edits from a Pro-Fringe angle on Rupert Sheldrake. He appears to ignore his own SPA status while commenting on others being single purpose. From what I have seen Askahrc/The Cap'n continued from where Tumbleman left off (including posting big messages of support on tumbleman's page: [192]) and has done more to stir up controversy where there is none than any current editor. Strangely enough I have been characterised by Cap'n as an "affiliate" of Vzaak despite minimal interactions. It is also unseemly that Cap'n appears to have mentioned sympathetic editors with the express purpose of notifying them of this conversation, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• Typical Wall O Text allegation as frequently made on the Talk:Rupert Sheldrake page by those who ignore or cannot comprehend that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP not only allow but call for the well sourced content by appropriately accredited experts representing the mainstream academic view to be the appropriate measures for content in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't checked whether Askahrc (talk · contribs) is a pro-Sheldrake SPA, but I have been working on the basis that he is a self-appointed "BLP warrior" with apparently honest intentions of trying to ensure that WP:BLP is applied to the letter of the law. However, he simply is an extremely clueless and massively WP:INCOMPETENT BLP warrior. The effect of his efforts seem to be to remove well cited statements of Sheldrake's views, in order to make him appear "more mainstream" - i.e less wacky. However the article doesn't take a position on Sheldrake's views - it merely states what they are and what the mainstream scientific reception to his views have been per WP:FRINGE (you can see from the article that the reception hasn't been pretty). "The Captain" is reading between the lines and concluding that there are BLP issues that simply aren't there. WP:ARB/PS sanctions should be considered. I and vzaak have done a lot of research into this topic, and it isn't helpful when someone arrives who is clearly deficient in knowledge and understanding both of the subject and Wikipedia policies, and starts threatening people with WP:AN/I when he doesn't get his way. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• @Cap'n: Posting at such length as in your OP is counterproductive as regards getting uninvolved input, as it's likely to drive uninvolved admins, or anybody with any time constraints, away from the thread. I suggest you post an executive summary another time. This time it doesn't make much difference, as you're in any case extravagantly unlikely to get what you ask for, a topic ban against vzaak and Barney. Their work defending Rupert Sheldrake against fringe POV-pushers may not get much thanks from day to day, but I for one am grateful for it. Thank you, guys. Following mainstream science and reliable sources actually isn't a POV, Cap'n, it's the essence of WP:NPOV as detailed in WP:UNDUE. P.S., I'm intrigued by your phrase "revert by longtime affiliate of Vzaak". If you're insinuating some impropriety — tag teaming? meat puppetry? — please say so outright. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC).
• This is going to seem a little scattered, as I'm responding to a number of different posts here. First off, a quick summary (you're right, Bishonen, that's my bad):

vzaakand Barney the barney barney have a long history of dominating the Rupert Sheldrake page and resisting cooperation. WP:OWN, WP:FAITH

I tried to make moderate, neutral edits (please see diffs above to confirm) but every edit was arbitrarily reverted with specious explanations. WP:CONS

In keeping with a long established habit(see complaints by other editors above), Barney^3 has begun launching ad-hominem attacks while Vzaak begins to argue that if I continue to edit the Sheldrake page I must be a sockpuppet/proxy. WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS

First of all, the editors who have criticized this post happen to be a who's who of those who are still able to edit the Sheldrake page freely (Bishonen excepted). I regret this post was over-long, I tried to trim it down, but I'll put together a summary to post below. Regarding the comment IRWolfie is a "longtime affiliate", it appears to my examination of edit histories that the two tended to curtail the same sort of edits at about the same time, and that IRWolfie rarely got involved without Vzaak also being active there. I can't prove tagteaming, however, so that's why I didn't include that editor in the incident. As far as my being more of a SPA than Vzaak; the very first edit Vzaak made was to Rupert Sheldrake, as was the greater part of the next 2000, whereas I've been around for over 5 years and only recently began giving a damn about this page. As to that interest, I've made 21 edits to the page and only 50 talk comments, compared to Vzaak's 645 and 393, respectively. Vzaak tried to claim my data is false because they're the 3rd contributor on the Talk Page, but I explicitly stated I was listed the Article's statistics and that data is accurate. I don't have an issue with Vzaak talking the most, I have an issue when Vzaak edits more than most people combined and then prevents others from doing so. As for the contributions page, I linked there because that is where I compiled that data. I didn't think an excel sheet of my own findings would be well received here, so I directed editors to the source I got the data from. How's this for a deal from an "SPA": If Vzaak agrees to a Fringe topic ban, I'll agree to one as well. I don't have a ax to grind with Fringe either way, and if it removes a major disruption from the topic I can edit all the rest of WP in peace.

Vzaak spends almost as much time talking about Tumbleman (which has nothing to do with these issues) as about this specific problem. I'm also beginning to be called a Tumbleman proxy (you know, it is possible for editors other than Tumbleman to care about this issue), or that I am in fact several of the hostile editors myself because one of the skeptical posts came from Cal State Long Beach, my old school (BTW, I graduated some time ago and I'm not prone to posting diatribes from my alma mater). As far proxying, I've been transparent that I disagreed with the gist of the Tumbleman block, and that I spoke to this editor later. This is not being a proxy, it's having an interest, and all of the positions I have put forth have been mine. If they're covering the same areas that Tumbleman and countless others have, its because these issues are apparent to a lot of people and yet don't get fixed. Finally and most importantly, the argument that I am trying to present a pro-Fringe perspective is easily disproven. For instance, if I were trying to get rid of a quote in order to make Sheldrake look better, I probably wouldn't keep insisting that we defer to using the longer block of the exact same text! Nor would I try to find other quotes that say almost the same thing about Telepathy. I've been trying to reach some sort of consensus, but it's not even a matter of not compromising at this point, it's a matter of not allowing anyone to make any changes, even if they're still 95% your POV. I'm not trying to make Sheldrake's page seem more mainstream and have never tried to say his views are (show me an example where I defend MR as accepted by science or appearing feasible!). Note that neither Vzaak nor Barney^3 offered to attempt more consensus-building or to try and be more hospitable to other editors, instead slinging accusations of proxying (Vzaak) or simply acknowledging that anyone who disagrees with them is too ignorant to be allowed to edit their page (Barney^3). None of them have shown any evidence that they have not been abusive. The Cap'n (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Askahrc, adding more vague claims isn't helping your case. For instance if you accuse someone of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:HARASS, you have to provide evidence of such. When have I been uncivil toward you? When have I harassed you?

The discussion on the talk page seems fine to me, apart from your not being very informed about the subject matter and not really understanding the responses you received. You didn't even understand when I reverted your quoting mistakes and referred you to WP:LQ.

My first reaction to your choosing to make the same edits as a blocked user was: "While this feels like proxying for a blocked user, I shall assume this is not the case, but there should be a compelling reason to rehash the issue."[193] We discussed issue with the proxying concern aside.

I never accused you of being a sockpuppet. I would never accuse anyone of that outside of filing an SPI.

You are the one who brought up proxying here, so I had to respond to that, with evidence. And the evidence shows that you came into the Sheldrake page with a host of misconceptions which have undoubtedly contributed to your difficulty. Perhaps the first step you could take is to carefully study, without prejudice, this evidence. I'm sorry, but you've been conned.

Barney has contributed the majority of the pro-Sheldrake material in the article. For instance he dug up the "astonishingly visionary" quote. We're not bad people. vzaak 21:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake makes his fifth or sixth appearance on AN/I and I can't see any improvement since the fall. I'm one of the editors who left discussing this article because the discussion became so polarized. I don't understand at all why a handful of editors are so invested in controlling the content of this one particular article, it is surely not worth the animosity that has resulted from trying to improve it.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on Sheldrake's work, pro or con. But I think it becomes toxic if every time a new editor shows up who is marked as having a specific point of view (and everyone has a point of view), they get labeled as being a sock, a proxy or representing a fringe POV. If enough editors on the talk page concur and the label sticks, that new editor is hassled and all of their edits will be reverted. It's not just a problem on the Sheldrake article, I've seen it happen elsewhere but it's been a perennial problem with Sheldrake. Once someone is labeled as "fringe", other editors just tune them out and start seeing them as a vandal. It's really destructive for Wikipedia (especially because those doing the labeling view their zealousness as protecting WP) to have articles that just a few editors with a particular point of view own.

Now, I haven't provided a long list of diffs or named any names. I think if you visit the Talk Page discussions, you can get a sense of the dynamics. Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations, I just wanted to support The Cap'n's opinion that this is a situation that needs to be addressed. I wish it could be done without topic bans and blocks but this article has been a mess since (at least) August 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I support The Cap'n's comments about the situation, and I believe that his proposed solution would be helpful. I endorse the comments of Liz. The article is owned, which no article should be, and the owner and its cohorts are not good stewards; (note their typical accusatory comments above, not to mention their claims of special expertise and good intentions). One of the problem editors of the Sheldrake article voluntarily withdrew from it. That might be a good solution for some of the others. Lou Sander (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lou Sander, the irony is that if this was one of the earlier times this article came to AN/I, there would be over a dozen editors commenting. But most of those who were active or made a stab at it, have thrown in the towel. So, there might be less fighting there now but only because there is an invisible "Do Not Trespass" sign that becomes apparent once you actually try to edit the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, you helped extend the problems with the article as much as you could when you continually supported the troll and sockpuppeteer Tumbleman at the article. You also avoided reading the evidence of disruption and sockpuppetry as much as you could, and further went on to accuse other random editors of sockpuppetry without evidence. Is it really surprising that this article has issues when there are people prolonging the drama? (And I know you haven't read a thing to date, especially when you wade in saying Personally, I don't want to spend my Saturday reading divisive, archived TP conversations,, you've decided your angle, and you'll jump to support those editors who agree with it). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What IRWolfie (talk · contribs) says about Liz (talk · contribs) is extremely insightful. Having at least 1% of a clue is usually desirable before commenting. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz has made serious allegations without providing any evidence to back them up. That is unhelpful. Cardamon (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Liz: Your comments are not helpful as they do not acknowledge reality: single-purpose accounts do focus on Rupert Sheldrake (who argues that morphic resonance is responsible for interspecies telepathy), and the attempts to polish that article violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The complaints in the OP are far too long and vague. If no one is suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG, this should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@vzaak, I never said and don't think you're bad people. For the majority of my edits dealing with you and tRPoD I've been very respectful of your efforts and appreciative of your POV (which I tend to share). My issue comes with the behavior that has backed up that POV, and the degree to which that POV appears to motivate the editing on Sheldrake's page. I agree with the statement that the Sheldrake page is dominated by SPA editing, though I politely disagree with the conclusion of which side that SPA is on. I think it's disingenuous to say that you've never presented a pattern of hostility when you consider the fact that the majority of editors with whom you've used the terms you've used against me (proxy, SPA, etc) have ended up with sanctions against them that you feature prominently in. As far as presenting Barney the barney barney as a helpful moderate, I find that shockingly misleading. I have rarely encountered someone who is less civil than Barney^3, whose first recourse is to repeatedly call disagreeing editors stupid and ignorant (as seen above and in the diffs I provided).

Liz has not been disruptive and has barely interfaced with the Sheldrake argument except to remark on the problems I listed above. If either myself or Liz have been abusive or violated any type of policy or NPOV, please list the diffs. Otherwise, please consider the fact that this very ANI has been a showcase of the mentioned editors declaring that anyone they disagree with does not possess the right or capability to edit on the Sheldrake page. My notice may have been overlong, but I included dozens of diffs showcasing problematic behavior, and can include dozens more showing WP:OWN, while they have not provided any diffs or evidence demonstrating the unsuitability of the edits they have reverted time and again (exactly what problems are they resolving at this point?), nor addressed the abusive behavior of Barney^3 at all. With all due respect to the admins, I feel you are being mislead in this case. Vzaak and Barney^3 may be valuable editors in general, but on the Sheldrake page at this time they are dominating all discussion and mandating a POV. I don't wish to ramble on too much longer (a fault of mine), but if it would be helpful to list out more diffs demonstrating WP:OWN I can readily do so; I can get as specific as anyone would like. Please do not dismiss this case as a result of my regrettable verbosity. The Cap'n (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary to your assertion Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I am not exhibiting disruptive behaviours typical of WP:OWN. I am willing to discuss content with other editors, to the point of bending over backwards to be reasonable with editors who clearly think that WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE should not apply to this article (although there is a limit that has been crossed several times). I am willing to let others edit the article. I am willing to allow content that is the "consensus version" even when I have somewhat subtle disagreements over wording. What I will work against is attempts to have this article excepted from expected standards of WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV WP:FRINGE. There is a difference here that you are wilfully ignoring: You are conflating competence, knowledge, interest and understanding of a topic with WP:OWN because you haven't go consensus for your changes. Get that consensus, and even if I disagree, I won't press the issue. That is fair, and it is how Wikipedia should work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this as concise as possible (though it goes against my nature...). I agree with you that WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE should apply to this article, but those are not the only or the ultimate concerns on this page. WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV (on the flip side) are equally important but not acknowledged by your conduct.

Here are a list of diff examples of you disdaining consensus when you disagree with the outcome: 1, 2, 3, 4

Here is a list of diff examples of hostile or strongly POV statements (there are many more but unfortunately I do not have the time to dig for more): 1, 2, 3, 4

I am not making absolutist statements that you've never allowed anyone to edit the article, but I am saying that you, Vzaak and a few of the other qualified anti-Fringe "consensus-builders" you reference in your diff wield a disproportionate amount of authority on the page, which has only grown more definitive and WP:OWN since the majority of those who disagreed with you were conveniently either scared off or sanctioned. The Cap'n (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any action will be taken right now, The Cap'n. But I can guarantee you that this article will be back again on AN/I in due time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

(I have changed the title to clarify that this is yet another Ryulong thread. --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC))

Don't change the thread title. That's completely out of line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Last year, I raised my issues with Nanshu (talk · contribs) and his extreme rudeness in regards to editing the same articles. No action was taken because for whatever reason, he stopped editing after the report. He has recently decided to disrupt WP:MOS-JA and in this lengthy diatribe he takes multiple pot shots at me, calling the proposal that has had a consensus formed as "utter nonsense", saying I'm WP:OWNing the section on the MOS (based on two discussions from 3 to 4 years ago), and calling into question my opinion because I'm in the top 100 editors by number of edits. There is no reason that Nanshu should be allowed to make these attacks in his attempts to form a new consensus (not to mention he acted without one) now or last year or ever. As was suggested in August 2013, I'm bringing this up, again, because he has done the exact same thing he did at Talk:Hokkaido and Talk:Ryukyu Islands and he's going to disappear for several more months when nothing can be done to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

His latest edits to WT:MOS-JA are more of the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Reading the links I get the impression that Ryulong (talk · contribs) is attempting to abuse this board to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Nanshu's reasonable comments about Ryulong's behaviour isn't a personal attack if it is true. Who knows why Nanshu may have "disappeared" in the past, people do have real life commitments, but certainly Ryulong's evident intimidatory behaviour could be a factor. Posting this[194] to an admin's talk page ten minutes after posting to this board appears odd given that this board is patrolled by admins anyway, so it he seems to be WP:ADMINSHOPing to boot. And Ryulong's claim of being "in the top 100 editors by number of edits" as justification of his behaviour indicates an issue of WP:OWN does exist and appears to be impacting his ability to work with other editors in a collegiate and constructive manner. --Nug (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  Nug, you are misconstruing everything I have said and done to your goals, as you have done in the disputes on Talk:Soviet Union. I contacted Nihonjoe several hours after the initial posting here because he is also a major editor of Japanese articles, not because he is an administrator. And I was pointing out that Nanshu in his edit here said that because I have such a high number of edits that my opinion on the matters on that page should not be acknowledged for some strange reason. I am not coming here to gain the upper hand. Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years and he acts this way to more than just myself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  One only has to compare your block log with Nanshu's block log to see whose behaviour has been more problematic over the years. --Nug (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  You claimed Nanshu's behavior has been problematic for several years, yet the evidence of his block log does not support your accusation, therefore you just violated WP:NPA. --Nug (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I have not violated NPA. I have provided diffs to show that he's combative and rude yestrday and last year in August. The fact he has not been blocked for this and I have been blocked for unrelated issues does not prove anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  I've reviewed the diffs and I don't think Nanshu was being any more rude in calling your argument "utter nonsense" than you were in calling his argument a "lengthy diatribe". The fact that you brought this content dispute here while Nanshu initiated a Request for a third opinion, demonstrates that you are the one with the combative attitude, not Nanshu. --Nug (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  This is not about his request. It is about his chronic rudeness towards me. And 12k of text essentially saying how "Ryulong is wrong and here's why" is a lengthy diatribe if I ever saw one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu's latest comments at WT:MOS-JA continue to include personal attacks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

To address one point brought up by Nug, we don't compare the block logs of two editors and reward the shorter one in a dispute. A block log can assist an admin in determining an appropriate escalation if an editor's misbehavior continues, and in a general sense it can give an idea of what kind of disruption or other trouble a person may be prone to. But that's it. It's not really worth bringing up a block log comparison in this situation.

As to Ryulong's initial request... I was going to state that this doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks, but Nanshu is clearly taking a stance of superiority against you while claiming you were "the guy who was incapable of understanding what transliteration was even though he was given a short lecture about it". In light of this edit which earned Nanshu a warning back in August, it's clear what they're trying to say. They're being more circumspect about it this time but it's still an ad hominem and so I'll leave a stronger warning. The fact that Nanshu has at least tempered the language suggests that maybe there's an attempt to be more civil (though it could just be wikilawyering to dance around a violation of WP:NPA) but I think that this warrants a warning. And for what it's worth, I have a basic understanding of Japanese so I can understand what the dispute is here (Romanization standards for languages related to but not exactly Japanese) though I have no intention of getting directly involved there. -- Atama頭 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between Nanshu telling Ryulong is "wrong and here's why", and Ryulong calling Nanshu "a kind of asshole". --Nug (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also a difference between acknowledging that what I said is wrong and spending 50 sentences attacking another editor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that Nanshu didn't spend "50 sentences attacking another editor", that is just an egregious exaggeration. Nanshu mentioned you exactly twice and devoted the remaining 99% discussing content. Only the Pope can plead infallibility, being told you are wrong with respect to content isn't an ad hominem attack by any stretch of the imagination. Your complaint against Nanshu is a total beat-up. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought so at first (I even wrote two paragraphs essentially saying what you just said) until I paid closer attention. There is no excuse for Nanshu stating that someone (anyone) is "incapable of understanding" and taking the position of being the teacher who is dealing with a hopeless student. And I noticed that it was almost identical to the speech that Nanshu used back in August against Ryulong, except that he was careful to not call him "stupid" directly but to use other terminology. You're correct that 99% of that long diatribe was on content (well, maybe more like 95%) but it's the part that wasn't on content that is the concern. Even if Nanshu is correct (and I don't have personal knowledge about katakana usage for Ainu and Ryukyu language terms, nor am I inserting myself into a content dispute) that doesn't excuse the position he is taking. Nanshu can make his argument successfully without denigrating other editors in the process. There's a big difference between saying "you're wrong" and saying "you're an idiot". Keep in mind, I have no objection to Nanshu stating that Ryulong's statement is nonsense, that is attacking an editor's argument and is definitely not a personal attack. I'll concede that Ryulong's comment calling Nanshu an "asshole" on the WikiProject Japan talk page was also an attack and Nanshu did not rise to the bait in that discussion which shows restraint to me. -- Atama頭 00:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like everyone agrees that Ryulong is a disruptive editor. He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. That's what I keep in mind when dealing with this editor. But you would admit it is not a easy job.

I usually think pointing out that someone is stupid is meaningless because it does not make him/her less stupid. Frankly speaking, I do not know if Ryulong is really stupid or just pretends to be. That's not the point. The real problem is that he tactically uses stupidity to disrupt discussions. When Ryulong is involved, discussions become overly long. If they purely focused on content disputes, they might have been necessary costs. However, he refuses to understand what others say, repeats the same thing again and again, and makes things personal disputes. Life is short and we like to spend our time achieving productive outcomes. We are editting an encyclopedia. --Nanshu (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

ANd this is just more of the same. He changed the thread title to turn this on me when it is completely unnecessary and his comment here is just more talking down to me, as he does here, which includes an accusation of WP:Advocacy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that changing the thread title is completely out of line. I recall multiple situations on ANI where an accusatory thread title was altered to make it clear that it was an accusation and not a declaration of fact. I'm going to remove the user name from the thread title, how about that? Since there are multiple accusations of ad hominem attacks here, I think that it's more accurate anyway.

For Nanshu... My warning to you still stands. I'm quite aware of WP:COMPETENCY, it has its place in discussions, and I've used it myself. It's relevant when an editor lacks the ability to participate at Wikipedia, either due to being unable to communicate in English, or having a fundamental inability to understand others' points of view to the extent that they are just unable to collaborate. It's sometimes important to call a spade a spade and not overlook a person's inability to participate constructively out of a fear of appearing rude. But that's not what's happening here. Both Ryulong and yourself are more than competent enough to be here. So don't try to shut Ryulong out of discussions because you don't want Ryulong to participate. If you're correct, show that you're correct without attacking him. I read what Ryulong called a "diatribe" and what you wrote was well-written, thoughtful, and compelling, and if you hadn't taken potshots at your opponent then there would be no controversy. Do you feel the need to belittle him to win your point, or should you have more confidence in yourself than that? My last point to you is this... Whatever your qualifications and knowledge, this is not a classroom where you are the professor, and Ryulong is not your student. Please don't take that position, no matter how superior you think your argument and knowledge is. Sway consensus to your side with your argument alone. A truly intelligent person doesn't have call someone stupid to show that he's intelligent, he merely has to demonstrate what his intelligence is capable of.

For Ryulong... Although I warned Nanshu, don't think that I've ignored your remark from the first of this month. That's a clear personal attack, even though you tried to mitigate it by saying he was "kind of an asshole", and even though you were reluctantly agreeing with him. If you want to strengthen the magnitude of your agreement with someone by pointing out that the two of you typically have a conflict, there are much better ways to do that without resorting to insults (especially vulgar ones). You see how that comment comes back to bite you. Please take more care in the future. You tend to get yourself embroiled in situations that spill onto noticeboards like this one, and the last thing you need is for people to be able to bring that out against you. So for your own sake, try to keep it more civil. -- Atama頭 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

The user named "William M. Connolley" accused me of "nationalistic purposes" after I changed the orded of names of Nicolaus Copernicus in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus I changed the name "Mikołaj Kopernik" on the first position, and the German version of his name succeeding. I did it because "Kopernik" is the ORIGINAL last name of the person you know by the name "Copernicus". However, the user "William M. Connolley" accused me of nationalism, and he should be warned. Wikipedia is not a place for such a debate, and his revert of my contribution does not have any sensible explanation. This is the full accusation by this user aimed at me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=595856126&diff=prev "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes." - this is what he wrote. How can I put Copernicus's real name on the first place in that article without being attacked? Yatzhek (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even used the article talk page to discuss this but come straight here? --Malerooster (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at two other threads concerning Yatzhek, [195] and [196]. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:LAME under "Ethnic Feuds." 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, we use the name he's best known by in English on the English Wikipedia. Everyone knows that DP 19:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Our article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a classic target of nationalist edit warriors. The article itself has been protected or semiprotected 22 times. Given this background, User:Yatzhek's attempts to give priority to what is said to be Copernicus's Polish name don't appear innocent. Consider looking for support on the article's talk page before reverting again. Some past discussions of Copernicus’ nationality can be seen here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is a discussion for the article talk page, not AN/I. Instead of seeking sanctions for those who disagree with you, you must instead build consensus for your editing choices. Takes longer but it also results in edits that are not reverted and no boomerang effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Malerooster - what should I discuss? He called me a nationalist and you say I have no right to report it???

@ User:EdJohnston - I know Copernicus is best know under his LATIN name, but why is the German name at the first place? Is it just alphabetical order? I don't think so. In other articles the names are not segregated by the first letter of the language, but by the importance. You see, in Poland there is much controversy about foreigners trying to "steal" Kopernik from the Polish nation and persuading others that he was fully German and call him a German astronomer. Some time ago the German Wikipedia had such an information but as I see now it was deleted. Still, no word about his Polish heritage. 80% of the last names in his family was pure Polish. His first language was Polish.

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136591/Nicolaus-Copernicus

Anyway - if "William M. Connolley " will not reveive a warning, I will stop believing in justice on Wikipedia. If I called someone a nationalist I would immediately get a warning or even worse. I smell prejudice. Yatzhek (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is not the same as calling you a "nationalist" (which I didn't realize was a bad thing to call someone). He was arguing with your rationale behind the edit (which isn't ideal) but wasn't calling you a name.

By the way, I bet any editor or admin who frequents this page can give you a list of terrible things that have been said to them during their time editing at Wikipedia so there is no "prejudice" involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, calling someone a nationalist has overtones that would be pejorative (same as calling someone a communist, socialist, zionist or fascist would be a pejorative. "comment on the content, not the editor" is the maxim. However, "stop fiddling for nationalistic purposes" is borderline content related. "Restored preferred English spelling and common name" would be preferred but the edit is correct. Applying an ideology is not a proper edit summary as it is irrelevant and inflammatory. It's an incivil edit summary that isn't worth a warning but it could be brought to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Liz Sooo, tracing your way of thinking, when i said now "stop you antipolish attacks!", it obviously wouldn't be the same as calling you "anti-Polish", right?

@ User:DHeyward -- he DID'NT restore the English spelling. I left the English spelling untouched. What he did is reverting my contrib, and placing as first the German equivallent of his original Polish name. Calling my purposes "nationalistic" is highly beyond the Wikipedia rules! Yatzhek (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So why are you are so concerned about an edit that coincidentally promotes a certain nationalistic purpose? That page has a steady stream of editors insisting on such edits, and other articles are likewise subject to boosterism. It's unfortunate if WP:AGF editors are caught in the crossfire, but it's worse that the community has to deal with it over and over. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Yatzhek, I'd agree with that assessment. First, saying "Stop your anti-Polish attacks" is inflammatory and should not be said in an edit summary. But--I'll use myself as the example--if that was said to me, it means that one of my edits was negative toward Polish people and culture. That is different from calling ME "anti-Polish".

It's a distinction you will frequently see made on AN/I. It is more serious to call people a name (saying who they are as a person) than to criticize an action they made (their behavior). Both are bad but name-calling is more likely to lead to a warning and a limited block than criticizing the content of an editor's edits. At least, that is the impression I've gotten from reading cases on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is quite obvious from the above statements by Yatzhek that WMC's comment was on the money, Second Quantization (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was called a "nationalist" only for switching the order of names of Copernicus, and placing his ORIGINAL NAME "Kopernik" on the first place in the brackets, and putting its German equivallent on the second place. This is not vandalism! I did it to improve the reliability of information and the importance of facts. For what I did I was immediately called a "nationalist". That's highly unfair, and this is the reason of this notification. Yatzhek (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: What colloquial language did Copernicus speak? BMK (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to our article, lots of them. Not conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should've checked there first, of course -- although the surviving evidence would seem to point to German as more important to him than Polish. BMK (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#name_listing would be the place to discuss whether the name order should be changed. NE Ent 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

s/(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)/Serbo-Croatian/g

The trigger for this discussion are these entries from the history of the article Tuone Udaina:

• 08:22, 19 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (Undid revision 596114359 by Joy (talk) it incorrectly suggests to naive readers that there is a language called 'Croatian', but there isn't, merely a standardized register)
• 02:06, 19 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+13)‎ . . (no, it doesn't suggest anything false, you're reading too much into a very simple and common moniker, Undid revision 595568445 by JorisvS (talk))
• 11:00, 15 February 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,134 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎top: it's "Krk" in the entire language, not just in the Croatian standard register; saying "Croatian" suggests things to readers that are false)
• 19:45, 14 February 2014‎ Joy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (3,147 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (gratuitous use of genetic linguistics terminology on an article tangentially related to that language - unlikely to attract anything other than trolls, Undid revision 592676462 by JorisvS (talk))
• 20:08, 27 January 2014‎ JorisvS (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (3,091 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (entire lang)

JorisvS (talk · contribs) is one of the linguistics editors who regularly uses the term Serbo-Croatian, a piece of genetic linguistics terminology that is nowadays considered démodé, and a non-trivial part of the speakers of that language consider it offensive, annoying, flamebait, whatever, because in the real world practically all you hear about is Bosnian language, Croatian language, Serbian language. The Serbo-Croatian terminology is maintained on the linguistics articles, because the linguistics editors have an organic consensus that it's the right thing to do, that the right sources support it. It is nevertheless done with a considerable amount of effort, as this issue appears to be very contentious for a bunch of people, and it comes up in the topic area almost constantly - the reverts and discussions about it are practically incessant.

That uneasy consensus is in turn propped up by another organic consensus which is that there's no normalization of linguistic terminology across the entire set of articles that mention those languages - for example, in an article about a Serbian village, we don't replace "Serbian" with "Serbo-Croatian". This is mainly because the encyclopedia describes, it doesn't prescribe - if the preponderance of sources about a topic are using the "Serbian" terminology, and there's no real reason to use something else as there's no reason to force the controversy to spill over into another topic area.

Tuone Udaina is a biography about a person who was the last speaker of a neighborly language; it's not a core linguistics article and it's not an article about Serbo-Croatian. The changes above are problematic because this could be a slippery slope into encyclopedia-wide changes from "(Bosnian|Croatian|Serbian)" to "Serbo-Croatian". That would be most unhelpful, because I would posit that it would lead to nothing constructive, just more vandalism and more endless discussions, and any perceived benefit to readers would pale in comparison. In effect, the main effect of such changes would be to create more work for everyone, because after all it'd be a lot of fiddly little changes and a lot of diffs to read for recent changes/watchlist watchers.

I believe that this falls under the anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC, but I don't want to enforce that because it hasn't escalated and because I'd be easily perceived as involved.

I've warned JorisvS previously about similar kinds of changes at User talk:JorisvS#Croatian. Sadly, there was little effect.

I'm looking for explicit community consensus here that we're not going down this slippery slope, and a nod from other administrators that they'll be on the lookout for excess contentious search'n'replace in the topic area. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus at the English Wikipedia, per the reliable sources, that there is a common language of Croatia, Serbia etc. and that it is called "Serbo-Croatian", the POV-motivated influx of emotional locals notwithstanding. This consensus is reflected in the articles about the standardized languages (Croatian, Serbian etc. and in the main article itself, Serbo-Croatian). Aside from misguided emotions of locals (which would make a rather silly reason), why would one specifically indicate a "Croatian" or "Serbian" term for something if it is the same in the entire language, i.e. Serbo-Croatian. I can't think of one. In fact, I'd say making explicit reference to the standard forms makes naive readers (for whom it is all too easy to think of a one-to-one correspondence of language and country) think that these are somehow distinct, or at least consider that there exists an independent "Croatian language" (which is incorrect). Maybe they'll be somewhat surprised seeing "Serbo-Croatian" and think 'what is that?', but that is what the link to the article is for, and in the end this will better inform our readers. --JorisvS (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no such consensus, or at best, you are misinterpreting it. The closest thing to existing consensus is similar to what we have at WP:ENGVAR: if the article is relevant to one particular national variety, use that name in it; otherwise, use "Serbo-Croatian" as a fall-back, because the term is relatively obsolete and/or in use only in specialist linguistic circles. That does not reflect the "misguided emotions of locals", but is a reasonable reflection of what the external world does. Check any travel guide or country-specific article in English to see what I mean. There is a limit to which structural linguistic POV (that Serbo-Croatian is one organic language) may interfere with sociolinguistic POV (that speakers feel four different languages), and real-world POV (that there is a wide range of context where the same thing is called "Serbo-Croatian" vs. "Serbian" vs. "Croatian". No such user (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that topicwise there is such a consensus, which is reflected pretty well in the articles about them. I did not mean to say that there is consensus regarding what to say when indicating a native term ("Croatian:", "Serbo-Croatian:", ...). The point I tried to make then was that it is misleading to say, for example, "Croatian:" without any qualifiers. This problem does not exist if, for example, "British English:", or "Australian English:" would be written. The world may be naively (i.e. without knowing the reality of the situation) adopting talking about "Croatian" and "Serbian", but this does not mean we have to blindly follow suit. In fact, I'd say that knowing the situation and keeping our mission (i.e. to inform people) in mind, we should use "Serbo-Croatian" wherever the terms do not differ in its standard forms, so that people are informed better. --JorisvS (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I started this discussion - you are deeply misguided when you so blithely disregard the very real cost of going down this path. There is near zero value to English readers in immediately conveying the information that a word is spelled the same in all of those variants, and there's a very tangible cost in volunteer time that would be spent policing this exercise in naivete. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not about trying to convey whether or not there are spelling differences between the standards, but about incorrectly suggesting something that it is not. The goal of Wikipedia is not to serve people's petty misguided emotions (i.e. POV!). Policing is only necessary because there are people who have misguided feelings about this. But if it is really about policing being too time-consuming, we should be able to work out something that reduces that. --JorisvS (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Joris, with due respect, you sound like a promoter of The Truth™. In your world, there is only one language Rightfully Called Serbo-Croatian®, and everyone who fails to call it by its Rightful Name™ has "petty misguided emotions (i.e. POV!)", so they need Policing™. However, reality is much more complex than that. It is not Wikipedia's job to disseminate The Truth™, but to reflect, in the neutral manner as possible, what the world actually does and thinks about the issue. Here, majority of the people refer to that language by its local, context-dependent names, and the world mostly follows suit.
Apart from fact-knowing, there are other qualities required for writing good and neutral [encyclopedia] articles, and they include nuanced approach and good judgment. You are, I think, sadly lacking them. Finally, let me quote H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." No such user (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can understand how you could interpret what I said that way. if the argument is sound, I'm quick to change my mind. If there were any proper linguistic arguments why Croatian and Serbian would be distinct languages, then I would be rather quick to follow those. The nature of the problem is, however, not complex: Linguistic evidence points extremely unequivocally in a single direction: these are really one language. Grammars completely identical, lexicon some 99% identical, and easily mutually intelligible. The problem is not linguistic, but social: The only points going in the other direction are thoroughly non-linguistical: native's feelings and laymen's usage paralleling the existing countries. Travel guides may well follow locals' preferences to avoid unnecessary for travelers who are not interested in the issue. Really, how does just following emotion-guided and naive usage inform our readers (unless I'm utterly mistaken about the mission of encyclopedias)? I'm not saying we should not properly describe how natives tend to feel about their language, just why we should not follow it. --JorisvS (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that the feelings of locals trump accuracy and neutrality. The bottom line of this discussion is 1) Is Wikipedia meant to primarily serve humans, allowing for some mild bias in articles 2) Is Wikipedia meant to primarily serve as a store of knowledge, where strict application of NPOV would hurt a lot of local reader's feelings, and furthermore possibly find itself running against almost entire local scholarship on the topic. If the former is the case, then the inevitable question is: where do you draw the line? Unless there are strict well-defined criteria on what constitutes "nuanced approach" and "good judgment", these are just empty phrases that can be abused to push a particular POV, possibly without limits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS: And how exactly the term "Croatian" fails to inform our readers? And why do we, on Wikipedia, for example, express things in imperial units, when metric are international and superior? Why do we call the same thing sometimes "soccer" and sometimes "football", when it's internationally called the latter? Why do we express the dates as DMY or MDY when ISO standard is YMD? And so on.
@Ivan: your argument boils down to: "since there is no single objective way to draw a line, we should never draw one". There lies the slippery slope. No, I'm afraid there are no "strict well-defined criteria on what constitutes 'nuanced approach' and 'good judgment' " – but I know one when I see one, or, more precisely: it becomes glaring when it gets crossed. No such user (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because merely "Croatian:" suggests a distinct language when it is blatantly not. We would not say "Canadian French:" when the term is the same in all varieties of French, we would say "French:", wouldn't we? As for the units, Wikipedia should always use metric and international unit and imperial units only as secondary units when it may be necessary because there are many readers unfamiliar with the international ones. Maybe we can find something similar for (Serbo-)Croatian? --JorisvS (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@No such user: The problem is that what is glaringly "obvious" to you is not obvious to others. I don't see absolutely nothing wrong at all by writing that Krk is a word in Serbo-Croatian. So what if some Croatians perceive that as insultive? Should we delete the article [[Serbo-Croatian]] altogether because millions of Bosniak, Croat, Serb and Montenegrin nationalists feel insulted at the very thought that they speak the same language? Or rewrite [[evolution]] so that it gets along with superstitious beliefs of much of mankind? Is really Wikipedia supposed to be a therapeutic device for cognitively and culturally challenged editors to help them come to terms with reality? The only sound argument for using Croatian in lieu of Serbo-Croatian would be when the the former is more specific, i.e. in case of Chakavian dialect words which are "ethnically" Croatian-only, or words/phrases specific to the Croatian standard. This is not the case with Krk. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though in the case of dialect words, it is more precise to make explicit reference to the dialect in question (e.g. "Chakavian:"). But, yes, for words specific to one standard, it would make sense to say, for example, "Croatian:". --JorisvS (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by the single instance of "Serbo-Croatian" in that particular article. What I am bothered is when someone replaces one accurate and appropriate term (Croatian) with another (Serbo-Croatian) for quite spurious reasons, and then edit-wars to keep that change in. The argumentation about "words specific to one standard" and "suggests a different language" are just your own rationalizations: that is not how the world uses the terminology, sorry. I'm just about equally bothered when someone changes AmEng to BrEng spelling, one citation style to another, BC to BCE, metric to imperial, you name it: it's disruptive (and, to add a few personal categories: annoying and borderline insulting). No such user (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You claim that "that is not how the world uses the terminology", but I must strongly disagree: From what I've seen that is exactly how the terminology is used. Many natives talk about it as if it is a distinct language and naive/uninformed people from other parts of the world will also use it that way. The latter people, especially, can't be blamed for that, they simply don't know the situation, and just assume that a different language is spoken in different countries (they of course know that this not always the case, but it is the default nonetheless). It is therefore not true that both terms are equally accurate and appropriate, and so it not comparable to changing spelling between variants. --JorisvS (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that Tuone Udaina is under the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions regime. That's about all that I can agree with in your post, I'm afraid. I don't see any advantage or willingness from the community to take a particular side in the Serbo-Croatian language dispute, one that is wrapped up in nationalist pretensions and a long and colourful history of disputes on Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

As I explained already, the community has already effectively taken a number of positions that directly relate to these disputes, mostly by handling it in a fairly sensible manner. We need to continue to do so, rather than go down the path of exclaiming "nationalists!" and doing gratuitous things whose main effect will be to lead to a situation worse that the one we're at. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Krk is the same in Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin, i.e. all Serbo-Croatian varieties so both are correct. Just use both, e.g. "Krk in Croatian (Serbo-Croatian)" if necessary. This is also arguably a linguistic issue (the term itself is discussed). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I never disputed the bare factual accuracy of the change. It's almost orthogonal to what I was saying up there. Adding more didascalia like that is more wasted effort, and just a tad less likely to lead to an unproductive result. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion dispute over recreation of deleted page is escalating, leading to personal attacks on talk page and accusations of vendetta by User:GMoneyWCAR

A few months ago, I ran across a page for a hardcore band, Assassins, I believe I was patrolling new articles at the time. Seeing that it was not notable, I proposed deletion, and it was deleted after an AfD(Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassins_(band)). I recently noticed, as it was on my watchlist, that it was recreated, then moved to a different name. Looking at it again, I felt the article was still not notable, and speedied it per G4. GMoneyWCAR, the article creator, removed the speedy, and stated at the talk page that he felt it met WP:BAND 7. I indicated that I disagreed, and replaced the speedy as it had been removed by the article creator. He has now claimed on his talk page, my talk page, and the article talk page that I have a 'hidden agenda' of some sort, based on the fact that I live in the metro Detroit area, which is the same area this band his from. He has now posted a rude ad hominem on my talk page questioning my 'moral compass', claiming that I have a hidden agenda of some sort. I did take this dispute resolution, to which GMoneyWCAR responded by reporting me to AIV, which was denied. I believe an administrator needs to intervene to resolve this issue one way or the other. If I'm mistaken about my belief that this band is non-notable, then I apologize, however I do not believe that to be the case.

I would also like to point that I also have many contributions, mainly to obviously unrelated aviation articles. It can also be seen that I was new article/recent change patrolling, and at that time I nominated many articles for deletion. I do not have a hidden agenda. I am concerned that GMoneyWCAR may have a conflict of interest, as most of his contributions are to articles about hardcore musicians, many of which are managed by the same agency. Skrelk (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Guessing from User:GMoneyWCAR's userpage, they are an agent of Outerloop Management and are using Wikipedia for promoting their bands. Except for We Came as Romans, most of the citations are to Outerloop Management themselves or the band's own website. I'm tempted to AfD Outerloop Management and 90% of the bands list on GMoneyWCAR's userpage.--v/r - TP 02:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, my moral compass is all over the place as well. Terrible thing. Anyway, only after I started cleaning up the article did it occur to me to look for the G4 rationale, to find that it is correct. TParis, you're the brains in the outfit tonight--who how can GWar move something on 19 February that was deleted on 24 January? And go ahead, delete it if you like and if your moral compass allows it. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey @Drmies:, I don't understand the question.--v/r - TP 03:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It was deleted. How can GMoney move it if it is deleted? Drmies (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe he recreated it, then moved it Skrelk (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: The answer that you seek, young padawan, is in the logs of both pages: [197][198] ;) Page was created in a Sandbox on 31 Dec and moved to mainspace. It was deleted 26 Jan. On 27 Jan, the sandbox version was restored (probably from an offline copy) and moved to mainspace on 6 Feb with the sandbox's history (not the original article's history). On 19 Feb, it was moved to its new title. --v/r - TP 05:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • @TParis: Thank you, master sleuth! Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Outerloop Management for deletion as non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outerloop Management. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not work for Outerloop Management in any capacity and only created pages on artists of interest that are notable artists. Because of the genre of music, there are only a handful of labels and/or management companies that work with these artists, thus tying many of them back to Outerloop Management, which is one of the most prominent management companies pushing this genre of music. If you want me to accept you don't have a hidden agenda, stop assuming it back in my direction. Besides the fact that after five years of working on Wikipedia pages, I've decided I am done with Wikipedia and had been planning on quitting this for quite some time now because of this exact reason. GMoneyWCAR (talk)

If you don't work for Outerloop Management then they owe you a fruitbasket or something. I went through thousands of your contributions and while not 100% of them were directly related to the company, more than 90% seem to be (and the other edits to bands and albums may still be related in some way I can't see). I'm sorry that you feel driven away because of the questioning of the notability of your articles, but Wikipedia does have standards for inclusion. -- Atama頭 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

COI single purpose shared account with likely puppets

Indiggo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paul Lewis Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Victorian09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sharkdiver94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Indiggo77 has admitted to being a shared account and the subject of the article Indiggo. An examination of their contributions page reveals that they are pretty much a single purpose account in this matter, and have been edit warring to maintain a particular image.

If it was just one of those things in isolation, and the account was actually new, I'd go with warnings. However, it's plenty of things, and it's been going on for nigh on six years.

It is also a little too convenient that Paul Lewis Smith recreated the Indiggo article which Indiggo77 had originally tried to create. Victorian09 and Sharkdiver94 appear to be socks as well, more SPAs focused on Indiggo. It's certainly not rabbit over at that article.

Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabriela and Mihaela Modorcea (aka Indiggo) are behind Indiggo77.63.247.160.139 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And this suspected duck continues to make disruptive edits to Indiggo despite multiple warnings. BigCat82 (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

now violating 3RR, engaging in edit warring. BigCat82 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the history of this article and see a days-long edit war involving a lot of parties. Granted, Indiggo77 is usually on one side of this, but I could block multiple people for getting involved. Instead, I edit-protected the article for 3 days, or until this whole mess gets sorted out. I'm sure I protected the wrong version but that's not my concern here. -- Atama頭 06:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not concerned with the article so much as the socking and shared COI account. I do have some concern that it might be promotional, POV, or non-notable, but I'll let other editors deal with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as you. I just wanted to stop the edit-warring temporarily, I wasn't expecting this to be a solution, just a way to slow things down until a solution is found. I'm tempted to lift protection with this block of Indiggo77, but if they retract the legal threat (which they can do at any time) they'll have the ability to start the war all over again. I don't want this to seem punitive to all sides, but I don't think that this NLT block is the final answer. Not to mention that they may use socks to start the edit war again, so we can let an SPI root them out if there are any. If another administrator wants to lift the protection earlier I won't object, but be ready for a potential mess if you do. -- Atama頭 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Legal threat [199] 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• They seem like a nice couple of girls trying to improve/bling up a bit their bio/profile, why demonize them, they are twins editing only their own page about themselves, is the one person one account so frozen in stone that it needs to dump a load of authority on this pair of girls for trying to improve their article? There is also an ip 63.247.160.139 addie that seems to be going after them with some kind of focus also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/63.247.160.139&offset=&limit=500&target=63.247.160.139 lots and lots of removals, warring Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SHARED, WP:COI, WP:3RR WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:LEGAL, all of which they have violated, as well as WP:SOCK, which is pretty hard to believe they didn't violate as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Mosfet, yeah, sharing accounts is a big no-no, as is writing about yourself (behavioral guideline: WP:COI).

I agree it would be nice to stop spam-templating them and try to discuss things and show them the 'correct way' - ie, they could suggest edits on the talk page.

But no legal threats is an even bigger no-no... and needs dealing with promptly. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of reading, you need to back off from the set in stone authority and consider twins girls editing together an article about themselves , not correct but why the hard hat, is something broken ? The is the smallest, least dangerous legal threat I have ever heard. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer in WP:NOTPROMO, because I want this site to stay free, and I don't want it to become an advertising service. A legal threat is a legal threat. It's a policy, with backing from the WMF's lawyers, to protect the site and its users. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is zero danger in that angry/hurt comment to the IP addie from the girls. The article is locked so there is no danger of any advertising, they look notable to me, WP:AFD if you disagree. Ban them from editing their bio , restrict them to the talkpage but don't ban them foreverMosfetfaser (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know there's no threat? Why are you so intent on defending everything they've done wrong? If they were three grown men pushing an article on a herbal "male enhancement" pill, would you be so defensive of them? Why are you defending them violating numerous policies meant to protect this site and its honest, non-promotional, non-edit-warring users who don't have a conflict of interest? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not intent on defending everything they've done wrong at all. They are not three grown men pushing an article on a herbal "male enhancement" pill , they are young twin girls editing their own little bio of minor importance. I already fully supported restricting them to editing the talkpage only. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I indef'ed User:Indiggo77 per WP:NLT policy. There are no exceptions for us to make our own judgement about the viability of the threat, and there's no escaping the intent to chill others' behavior. It's a strictly legal concern, regardless of what types of edits or articles are involved. It's entirely in their power to get this block lifted promptly, all they have to do is withdraw the threat in a public and unambiguous manner. DMacks (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is the same principle as three grown men editing an article on an herbal "male enhancement" pill they created, they have products to sell and they want people to know about them and receive recognition for them. The only difference you bring up is ultimately a sexist one: sex and only sex. They have been blocked at any rate. Now it's just a matter to see if further evidence of sockpuppetry comes up. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (twice. busy here, innit?)

Is an SPI necessary or helpful? I don't know - thoughts?

I still assert that when the crisis is over, it would be nice to try and explain how they could make suggested edits (as long as they accept the NLT stuff, of course). 88.104.19.233 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and per WP:REALNAME we probably need otrs ID. And they need 1 account per person, of course.

Hope it can be resolved. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a great idea to SPI any of the suspected accounts should they become active again, especially if they otherwise continue to behave like Indiggo77 and Indiggo77 does not withdraw the legal threat. If they remain inactive, however, less work for everyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth it anyway, to be honest; with the 4 accounts listed above - if only to clear the issue up. Plus it takes a while usually. I can't start one myself, 'coz I'm an IP. But if you want to wait and see if they edit, that's fine too. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, a SPI may be necessary in this case, especially with egregious behavior such as that shown above. Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since multiple users have asked for it, I've gone ahead and filed one. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser won't be able to do anything here. The claimed sockpuppet accounts haven't been active for years so there won't be any records left to compare them to, and checkusers almost never link accounts and IPs. Any sockpuppet findings will have to be based on behavioral evidence. -- Atama頭 17:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm correct, CheckUser only stores data for 3 months. So, a SPI wouldn't be as helpful, but at least it should be tried. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, I've volunteered at SPI many times (as an investigator and/or petitioner) and I'm pretty sure 3 months is the rule for stored data to be checked. CU won't be able to help. I think the biggest issue to address is the legal threat (which has to be retracted or there's no question), then the admission of being a shared account, and finally the general disruption (ownership, edit-warring, etc.). I think I'm pretty sympathetic to conflict of interest editors because of my work in that area but this kind of disruption isn't acceptable from anyone. Oh, and I agree that OTRS needs to be involved before we assume that account is really the article subject, we don't want someone getting away with impersonation. -- Atama頭 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Lewis Smith has logged back in and posted on the SPI page, if that helps. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that helps, a lot. :) -- Atama頭 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A clerk refused the checkuser against all of the alleged socks (including Paul Lewis Smith who actually has posted recently enough that a CU could check him against Indiggo77). Giving this more thought, I think that I'm inclined to agree. I've dealt with sockpuppets a number of times, and I've found that there are a number of reasons why sockpuppets are used, with the most common being the following:

1. Avoiding scrutiny (being able to make edits while hiding who you are).
2. Forming a false consensus (making it appear that someone is agreeing with your argument by pretending a second account is a second person).
3. Evading a block or ban.
4. Avoiding 3RR in the midst of an edit war.

None of those seem to apply here. Rather than trying to be sneaky and avoid scrutiny, Indiggo77 admitted to sharing the account with multiple people, basically confessing to breaking Wikipedia's rules. They wouldn't do that if they were trying to hide what they were doing to avoid sanction. None of the accused socks have been involved in discussions or tried to back up anything that Indiggo77 has done. None of the accused socks appeared while Indiggo77 was blocked to continue what Indiggo77 was doing; the only editor who edited during a block only did so to deny being a sockpuppet. And lastly, despite being in a long-term edit war, none of the other socks showed up to keep Indiggo77 from violating 3RR (I'm not sure if they even know what 3RR is). Victorian09 and Sharkdiver94 only edited a handful of times each, over a very short period of time (22 minutes and 48 minutes respectively). The only account that differs is Paul Lewis Smith, and I see nothing that indicates that the editor is anything but a fan of the group. So my suggestion is to forget the sockpuppet accusations, there are plenty of other problems to address here. -- Atama頭 16:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: I removed the protection from the article, since I no longer believe that Indiggo77 has been using sockpuppets, I don't see any indication that they plan to retract their legal threat, and things seem to have cooled down. There are a number of edit requests on the article's talk page and I want people to be able to participate at the article again as long as there are no more edit wars. -- Atama頭 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin unilaterally rejecting move of Jahi McMath for no discernible reason except "process"

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

---

There exists an article about Jahi McMath - a sensitive, recently-deceased-person issue. As the article is not a biography but rather is about the medicolegal debate over her death, JeremyA initiated a Requested Move to move the article to Jahi McMath case, as per the precedent of Terri Schiavo case. There was immediate, significant and unanimous support. No objections were registered by any editor. I decided that rather than wait around with the article at an inappropriate title (which suggests that the article is a biography), and that it was apparently entirely uncontroversial, I would speedily move the article per WP:SNOW.

Admin BrownHairedGirl has unilaterally overturned this closure, for no discernible reason other than process. She did not participate in the discussion, did not register a support or oppose !vote, but apparently believes that for the sole reason of "process", we have to sit and wait for a week to make an otherwise-entirely-uncontroversial move. This, I believe, is not in keeping with the goals of Wikipedia - most notably the idea that process should never get in the way of doing what is right. What is right is to move an article that is not a biography to a title that does not suggest it is a biography.

One should not be able to use "process" to delay an article move that one doesn't express any objection to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• She's absolutely correct. The nominator, or someone who has been involved in the discussion, should not close such a discussion... especially when the discussion hasn't even lasted 2 days. A bold move could have been doable, but if a page move request has already been opened up it comes across as an attempt to force the issue. Closing discussion reeks of attempting to block out other opinions, even if that's not was intended. Also, when she reverted the close there were only two explicit supports, plus the nominator and a non-explicit support. That's not quite WP:SNOW material yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• See the page history of Talk:Jahi McMath and my warning [200] at User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Closing_RM_discussions:_final_warning.

Editor NorthBySouthBaranof

1. Repetaedly moved the page while a requested move discussion was still open.
2. Closed a discussion in which they were WP:INVOLVED, and which had run for only 1 day, contrary to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves

I have no view in the merits of the move proposal, but this editor should be aware of a WP:BOOMERANG in coming to ANI to complain about their own edit-warring to breach basic principles of consensus-formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And the fact that you have no view of the merits of the move proposal is exactly my point. If you had expressed objection and opposition to the move for a content-based reason, I would have no issue with reverting the closure. It is your interjection of needless process and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake into the matter that makes no sense. If you don't think the article should be at Jahi McMath, why do you care if it's at Jahi McMath case? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I care that a consensus is properly formed, because that way we get a stable outcome. That's why we have consensus-forming processes. What exactly is your problem with waiting for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion? Why the hurry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is not a biography of Jahi McMath (as per WP:BLP1EVENT, we can't possibly write a biography of her), it is a descriptive article about the medicolegal and public dispute. As per Jeremy, the move and restructuring to non-biographical structure significantly aided in the resolution of editorial disputes - notably, by removing the birth/death dates from the first line. Moving the article back to a biographical title invites the reversion of these restructuring moves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, why the hurry? WP:NODEADLINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, why the delay? WP:IAR, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You still haven't actually said you oppose the move, meaning you're literally doing this for no other reason than slavish adherence to process. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If I had a view, I would be WP:INVOLVED. Only an uninvolved admin is allowed to intervene in any situation.

The editor who opened the move discussion could have tried a WP:BOLD move, which might or might not have been reverted. Instead they opened a consensus-forming discussion, a process which may take a few days. Having started that process, let it continue until an uninvolved editor determines that a consensus has indeed been formed. User:Atama explains below what a mess we would be if objections came after an early close.

I still await your explanation of why you are in such a hurry. Have you read WP:NODEADLINE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• When I opened this move discussion I thought it a fairly obvious move and considered a bold move myself, but decided on a discussion as a courtesy to the editors of the article. Given that the move helped to resolve a long standing debate over the article, I think that NorthBySouthBaranof's bold early close was reasonable. As no one has complained about the early closure and the move has been completely non-controversial, I think that insisting on following the letter of the rules for no reason other than for the sake of following the rules is counter to the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. —Jeremy (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Can everyone just calm the heck down? There isn't a burning need to move this article, and the RM hasn't had much time; there have been a lot of talk page discussions about the article so I think it's fair to let it run at least a day or two more in case other views come in. But just boldly closing it early like that is probably a step too far, and once you are reverted, just let the process run.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl is correct. Consider this scenario... The page gets moved right now, someone objects tomorrow. Now you have a mess on your hands. If a few days go by and nobody objects, moving it per snowball is probably okay. What I don't understand is this... Why start the process if you think the process is unnecessary? If you wanted to move it because you think nobody is likely to object, why not move it? If you wanted to open a discussion out of courtesy, do you think it's courteous to move the article quickly after the discussion began? I'm not a slave to process but it looks like this is an attempt to be bold but pretend you aren't being bold by having a token discussion first. If that's not your intent, then let it play out the way it's supposed to. -- Atama頭 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification: I didn't start the process, JeremyA did. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• NorthBySouthBaranof didn't just close early. That was done after NSB had three times moved the article despite the discussion still being open. NSB's first move was at 11.29 on 19 Feb[201], less than 8 hours after the RM discussion was opened [202]. Two further moves followed[203][204]; I reverted them all.

Move-warring an open discussion, despite being warned, is plain disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Insisting on bureaucracy for no other reason than bureaucracy disrupts the ability of editors to improve the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no bureaucracy. There is a WP:consensus-forming process, which is a core policy of Wikipedia, and that can take a few days. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so why the hurry? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precisely. Once the process has been set into motion, it is disruptive to attempt to bypass that process, especially by edit warring. A solid consensus is not built on a day's discussion from 4 editors. Give it time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• For the benefit of NorthBySouthBaranof, the reason why we are insisting on process (not bureaucracy) is well-explained in the essay "Understanding IAR (Ignore All Rules)", in the section, "Why have any rules, then?" It boils down to consensus though, ensuring that a consensus has been reached. This isn't bureaucracy, "we do what the policy/precendent is because that's what's written", it's a way to fairly establish what the consensus is for a decision before implementing the decision. As I said before, we have two ways of doing things; discuss to reach consensus, or be bold and do it and go back to discussing matters if someone objects (the old BRD method). It's disruptive to do that backwards, though, to be bold while in the midst of discussion. And again, I'm not objecting to a snowball closure, I just think it was premature to implement it so quickly, to implement it by someone who is involved, and it was definitely disruptive to get into a move-war about it. -- Atama頭 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A pot-kettle footnote to this saga. Only minutes after posting here to defend their move-warring and close-warring[205][206], NorthBySouthBaranof asks another editor (User:Konveyor Belt) to "please engage in talk page discussion rather than edit-warring". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Because there are actual content-based objections to the change. If you can't distinguish concerns about article content from concerns about bureaucracy, I'm afraid I can't help you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You should then open up a brand-new RM and see, again, which editors support or oppose the move. Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: See the explanation by User:Atama at 20:28. WP:BRD is not bureaucracy. Consensus-seeking is not bureaucracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Benja the Beauty Boy

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

---

I am concerned with the editing patterns of Benja the Beauty Boy (talk · contribs · logs). This user first edited earlier this month, and after reviewing a few of his edits, I noticed numerous warnings on his talk page and blocked him yesterday for 24 hours for disruptive editing. I noticed today that he seems to have returned to his disruptive editing. What is the best course of action regarding this user? BOZ (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is Bambifan101. -- Atama頭 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, given the editor's topics of editing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous warnings on the user's talk page came from Jim1138, Geraldo Perez, AddWittyNameHere, Josh3580, and NicatronTg, so I am inviting them to comment here as well. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe my only interaction with them has been the reverting of a straight-forward case of section blanking at List of recurring South Park characters and leaving a warning at their userpage in response. Both of these actions on my side were done through Huggle and were rather basic; the kind of stuff I come across pretty much any time I am vandal-fighting.

From a quick look at things... They have not responded to a single one of the ten warnings they have gained in the past three weeks; they have not responded to their block and they are still continuing the behaviour that got them in trouble. Their lack of communication makes it impossible to guide them towards proper behaviour on the off-chance that this is more a competence- or understanding-based problem than purposeful non-constructiveness. However, considering their behaviour is rather standard vandal-behaviour (changing information without sources; adding false information; removal of content; ignoring warnings; continuing such behaviour after a short block), I would lean towards purposeful disruptiveness instead.

One way or another, it looks to me like they are heading towards an indef block rather quickly and indeed, plenty of non-constructive users have gotten themselves indeffed with far and far less warning.

Regarding Atama's suggestion that this may be Bambifan101... I cannot call myself particularly familiar with Bambifan101, but if it's him, he has seriously changed his modus operandi. Although the subjects chosen seem to fit Bambifan's usual territory, pretty much none of the other types of behaviour listed are present: no edit summaries, snide or not, and no rebuttals and angry remarks at talkpages (in fact, no edits outside articlespace except for the single uploading of a file and two edits to templates related to the articles edited; X!'s edit counter shows no deleted contribs, so it's not the case that there were any that have been deleted since either). However, they do seem to add false and/or unsourced information to pages, so I suppose that it is a possibility. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that too. The lack of any participation on any discussion pages seems uncharacteristic. It's just the first thing that popped into my mind, since that editor has been so visibly disruptive for so long, but my first guess is probably off. In either case, if the editor can't or won't respond and continues to be disruptive, a permanent block is warranted. -- Atama頭 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

List of metro systems

Conduct issues resolved, so what remains is a content dispute ... and that's not an ANI matter.
For a concern about original research, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard would be a good place ask for input from uninvolved editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I'm very concerned about an invented rule that was created out of the air by a group of editors at List of metro systems. The rule is basically original research and is not referenced and from the talk page, it appears as if it was added deliberately in an attempt to split the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which is considered by by the official operator's source and a reliable secondary source to be one system. It was added yesterday by User:BsBsBs (see the diff here), which I have strongly opposed as inventing rules out of the air is a clear breach of WP:NOR. However, editors ignored this and this is the rule that was invented: "This list counts metros separately when multiple metros in one city or metropolitan area have separate operating companies." The official operator of the system defines Seoul Metropolitan Subway as follows on their legal law:

제3조(정의) 이 약관에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 호와 같습니다.
Translation: Article 3 (Definition) The definition of the term used in this clause is as follows.

1. “수도권 도시철도”란 인천교통공사, 서울메트로, 서울특별시도시철도공사, 서울시메트로9호선(주), 코레일공항철도(주), 신분당선(주)가 운영하는 구간 및 한국철도공사가 운영하는 광역전철 구간을 말합니다.
Translation: "Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit" refers to the sections of metropolitan subways operated by Incheon Transit, Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Seoul Metro Line 9, Korail Airport Railroad, Sinbundang Line and Korail.

〈 개정 (Amended) 2009. 8. 20, 2009. 10. 5, 2011. 7. 15, 2011. 12. 23, 2012. 2. 21 〉

Source: Terms of Passenger Transport.

I also brought this reliable secondary source to them, which is from Railwaytechnology.com, a "global procurement and reference resource providing a one-stop-shop for professionals and decision makers within the railway and rail transport industries" as quoted from their website:

Seoul subway serving the Seoul Metropolitan Area is the longest subway system in the world. The total route length of the system extended as far as 940km as of 2013. The first line of the subway was opened in 1974 and the system presently incorporates 17 lines (excluding the Uijeongbu LRT and the recently opened Yongin Ever Line). The subway system is operated by multiple operators including the state-owned Seoul Metro, Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, Korail, Incheon Transit Corporation, and other private rapid transit operators. Many extension projects are under construction on the already extensive subway network.

Source: Railwaytechnology.com

Clearly, the source is defining this metro system very differently from the way it is listed on that article because of this invented rule that is pointing to a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. I need the help of an admin to remove this original research and list Seoul Metropolitan Subway the way the sources define it, not by a group of editors' original research that they claim "consensus". They have now splitted that system into different lines, which is unacceptable. Massyparcer (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa. This seems like an inappropriate forum for this. An WP:RfC seems like a better idea than ANI. As a neutral party (I came here for the IP spam item above), I would like to point out that according to this diff, when BsBsBs "censored" you, they reverted to the original wording of your post, which you had edited twice, rapidfire. It seems much more plausible to me that they did so accidentally due to an edit conflict than that they deliberately removed parts of your talk page. They seem like an experienced editor would know that nothing good would come of clipping out parts of someone's response on a talk page, and the parts they cut out weren't even particularly damning or critical. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the statement about censoring but I would still like to here about constant breaches of WP:NOR by inventing a rule out of the air and going against what the source says. One of the editors has claimed that inventing a parameter for the list out of the air is fine - Is this true? Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a content dispute. If you can't reach agreement, use the WP:dispute resolution mechanisms. You may want to start at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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

What was Admrboltz reason for blocking?

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

---

• After the whole discussion about the interaction ban, User:Admrboltz blocked me for three days for no apparent reason. I asked this user twice for why did this user block me but I did not get send me a message back for the reason. While in my history I haven’t caused ANY vandalism in a while so I would like to know why did this user had the need to block me without giving me a reason why after asking the user twice. – TreCoolGuy (talk) 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Vance Miller

A Claim has been made at Talk:Vance Miller that the subject is perfectly capable of manipulating his own wikipage, is there anyone who can see the wood for the trees here?Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How come there are only two recent edits to that talk page? Epicgenius (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

wkvm? wikipedia vance miller by any chance?

In any case, I hatted the thread on that page that had "asshat" in its title as not within talk guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone can figure that out, BTW. Epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK I removed the information completely from the talk page (the thread that said "asshat"). BLP applies to non-article space too. We allow a little bit more leeway on discussion pages than in articles, partially because they don't get viewed as often but mostly because it's sometimes necessary to talk about unverified negative information when attempting to discuss biography content. But we never allow full-out attacks against an article subject. -- Atama頭 21:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Edit war: There is now an edit war heatedly going on, I don't have the time to deal with it directly, but someone needs to step in. -- Atama頭 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Spent just a bit more time looking into this... The edit war has cooled off for the last few hours after both editors were warned, so no need for intervention yet. Both Epicgenius (talk · contribs) and Auchunesha (talk · contribs) have violated WP:3RR but I'd rather not block either of them (despite it being a bright line), I don't think it's necessary unless either starts up again. -- Atama頭 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To give an idea of what is happening at this article, here are two SPAs that have recently been active at this article:

• Auchunesha (talk · contribs): User was created yesterday (Feb 20) and their only contributions to Wikipedia are to start a recent edit war.
• Wkvm (talk · contribs): User created on Feb 2, removed or mitigated criticism of the article subject that day, then stopped editing before jumping into a recent edit war which began when their earlier edits were undone.

I don't see much else that's fishy at the moment, but these two may be worth watching. -- Atama頭 20:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've notified both editors that they are being discussed here. -- Atama頭 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page, user page, of a blocked user being vandalized in a bad, bad way.

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

---

By 162.251.113.10 here and here. I don't know the proper venue to report this, but it's got to stop.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested protection and reported the IP; possibly overkill, but. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Brian France

Could I get a few admin eyes on this article, please? An SPA has been edit-warring with me to restore this version of the article, which has significant issues with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV among others, and also removes all of the inline citations I've added. I've tried multiple times to engage him on his talk page, my talk page, and article talk, but his only responses have been to remove my post so I know he's at least found article talk, but still won't engage there and call me a "bizarre obsessive". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Nikki's assessment: reverted last edit by Jealousgarcia. NE Ent 03:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: there is disruption here, edit warring without proper invocation of BLP (which saves your butt, Nikkimaria!), failure to communicate (civilly), SPAism, abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. Indefinite does not equal infinitely, as any Ent can tell us, but I do not have high hopes--I could have used WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale. And next up, Bill France, Jr.. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the user had been using an IP to edit-war as well, I semiprotected the article until Monday. Seeing as the Daytona 500 is Sunday... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frasier (season 1) and user Jetromp/99.244.151.88/Etsd

I have attempted to remove certain pieces of trivial information from the Frasier (season 1) article, but have been reverted multiple times without explanation or discussion. I also believe the editor to be using up to three different accounts as sockpuppets (evidence [207], [208] and [209]) to continue doing so. I will admit that I allowed myself to be drawn into an edit war, but the user has been completely uncooperative and continues to add trivial information about actor's sexuality. As a gay person myself, I find it annoying and a little insulting that this editor should want to make such a big deal of pointing out that certain actors are gay when it has absolutely nothing to do with the show or the article itself. Ideally, I would like the content to be removed and the page protected, but perhaps an administrator stepping in will dissuade the editor from re-adding the trivia. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The epitome of original research. "NOTE: After commenting on the attractiveness of Roz's date, Fraiser remarks that Niles might be gay. In real life David Hyde Pierce is gay."[210] Horrid. Block the SPA, and keep rejecting the crap. Doc talk 07:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive/unconstructive editing by IP 89.133.98.28

89.133.98.28 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has been bombarding transport-related articles with redlinks and incorrectly formatted images. From what I've seen, their edits to articles not created by them are always unsourced and their English is awful. In addition, the IP has created many talk pages with broken English, no references or sources, and no associated articles. Although the editor appears to be acting in good faith, this seems like a severe competence issue to me. Any advice? Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge debate going on at the List of metro systems article's talk page. Maybe you should direct the IP editor to the talk page first.Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the IP is particularly involved in that. Note that I wrote "transport-related articles". Here's an edit by the IP not related to transport. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

User:NuparuMahnika

This user has been asked to cease making unconstructive edits to UEFA Champions League and List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals, and at least two editors have been involved in reverting him/her. In response to my request on their talk page for them to stop, they simply responded "lol fuk u". I think that's grounds for a block, don't you? – PeeJay 17:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so; however, I have left a warning on the editor's talk page, so I hope that that will lead him to behave in a more civil manner. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unregistered user continues adding unsourced information across dozens of articles

66.65.150.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add unsourced information across dozens of articles nearly every day over the last weeks, despite having been warned several times and given more than a final warning. RJFF (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, if they start doing it again after the block expires then escalating blocks can follow. -- Atama頭 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games

Could we get some eyes at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and possibly Anita Sarkeesian? User:Nosepea68's edits have escalated over the past few days, from directly challenging the subject and now outright trolling and repeatedlyadding thesame material to the Tropes article. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The user is up to 6RR at the moment. Woodroar (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done, I want that too as per there's other SPA users than me white washing things of the author (video maker) of TvWiG Nosepea68 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked Nosepea68 since he had reached 9 reverts in about two hours by the time I got there. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IP attacking Roscelese again

Here.

• 59.126.26.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I took care of it for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism on my pages (and the obviously associated related on the SIOA and CAIR pages) come from a lot of different anonymous IPs; I don't suppose any kind of rangeblock (to forestall all this instead of just blocking them as we see them) is possible? (Sent you an e-mail, Mark, for BEANS reasons.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an open proxy, Mark, so I took care of it some more. Roscelese, there is no range, they're from all over the world (though most likely only one person). See my own talk here. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC).