Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786

Legal threat by subject of article.

Recently I made note on Karl Shuker, a "leading cryptozoologist" that the article, although he advocates for a pesudoscienc field that is all but laughed out of real science (i.e. the people who hunt bigfoot and the loc ness moster..) that there was no critques of his books or work, and all the sources were clearly pro-cryptozoology or self published. So I tagged the article and made note on the talk page that it needs attention to bring it closer to WP:NPOV. Well, what I didn't notice beforhand is that the article's subject, Karl Shuker actively monitors and edits his own article, and he jumped in with a very abusive response, clearly violating WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, essentially telling me that I was ignorant of the subject therefore should not edit the article. So then I pointed out how he even barely meets WP:N under WP:AUTHOR and that it's tenious at best at that. So, his response was legal threat that if I was to put in information critical of his work he would seek legal action. Thought I would bring it here for discussion. Talk:Karl_Shuker#Criticism — raekyt 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a blatant legal threat of the "if you do this, I'll do that" variety - in direct contravention to orderly editing and maintenance of this encyclopedia. I've indefinitely blocked his account from editing accordingly. Rklawton (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work. He was obviously just a self-promotionist. Basket _Feudalist 16:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He has promised not to make any more threats, and he has promised not to directly edit his own article. I have unblocked his account accordingly and consider the matter closed. Rklawton (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did he promise not to make anymore threats? He apologized to "wikipedia" for his civility, but not to me, he promised not to edit the content on his page, but he didn't promise not to make legal threats, and did not retract those threats? — raekyt 17:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It wath a thecret promith to hith thecret friendth Basket _Feudalist 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm... *confused look on my face*.. what? :) — raekyt 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I really hope for your benefit that you're not affecting some sort of gay lisp there to mock the subject. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shut up, Winthrop :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I just don't feel comfortable editing this article unless those specific conditions are met, and I don't see them. He threatened me with legal action, never reacted them and never stated he wouldn't do it again... so I'm confused why the block was lifted. — raekyt 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An apology is not a requirement, nor is there any requirement that you accept the editor's promises. As the blocking editor, that's my job, and I'm satisfied. Given your antipathy toward the subject, it would be best for you not to edit his article as it can be construed as a conflict of interest. Rklawton (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Any edits I make to articles is pretty strictly in compliance with policy... Me not accepting a group of individuals who hunt bigfoot as legitimate scientists shouldn't exclude me from editing articles about them or their field. Theres a big difference between language used on talk pages to discuss something and what you contribute to the actual article. I wasn't aware beforehand of tagging this article that the article's subject was so closely watching it that after a year of not editing would show up to comment on my comments within 24 hours. As far as I'm aware there isn't an automated way to notify you of comments on an article's talk page, just your userpage, so he obviously watches it very closely. Took me off guard, and then he made legal threats and was very uncivil in his responses. Irregardless, I'm a very long standing wikipedian and take editing articles very seriously, so I really don't see an COI here? — raekyt 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There isNE Ent 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh.. didn't remember there is a way to get that e-mailed to you... I suppose that would work if your watchlist wasn't IMMENSE like mine, lol. — raekyt 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Raeky, may I offer some advice? The problem was in your approach. There is a difference between arguing your point to a BLP subject, and getting them to see the light. It's always better to take the "seeing the light" approach with some extra hand holding that we don't give to most people because it saves everyone time and frustration in the end. These folks need to be treated gently because they are emotionally invested in themselves and we can't expect someone to take the disconnected approach to themselves that we expect of all others. Which is why we have a COI policy in the first place. We need to educate these folks on the appropriate responses because they arn't aware of them. All they know is that they have a right to legal action. But we can teach them that there are venues available to them, or better yet, we teach them why we do what we do and the spirit and intention behind it. It doesn't always work, but it leaves folks with a better feeling and we appear in the media less often.--v/r - TP 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with above. Also I don't recall anywhere in the NLT policy where an apology is required, just retraction, and it's Rklawton's (the blocking admin's) call if that requirement has been met. Ditch ∝ 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

remember also there must be hundreds or even thousands of generic 'notify me when the web page changes' which would likely mostly work here (although also picking up stuff like template changes) Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree an apology isn't needed, a retraction is. I can't find it either. Could Rklawton please provide a diff showing that Czbiker has retracted his legal threat? All I can find is a vague apology for being unprofessional, which covers the incivility but not the threat IMO. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's Rklawton's block, he can undo it for any reason.--v/r - TP 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that admin action is exempt from WP:ADMINACCT? And since he has not retracted his threat, does that imply another admin can block him or is that wheel-warring? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If Rklawton can't or won't provide evidence of withdrawal of the legal threat, another admin should block until the threat is explicitly retracted. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that Rklawton has a grudge against raeky, by calling their nomination of the subject's article for deletion bad faith. RNealK (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I notified Rklawton of this discussion and was told The matter is closed. Go make drama somewhere else. Is this the kind of behavior expected of an admin? Would another admin please determine whether the legal threat has been withdrawn? RNealK (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it seems clear he's sorry for his response. Therefore, he shouldn't need a block. Just ask him respectively to retract the threat and wait for him to get around to it (his mother's supposedly sick, so it could be couple days maybe). He hasn't violated NLT in the past, and he clearly isn't going to pursue legal action, so I think we can wait for him to voluntarily retract the threat, even if it's not immediate. Just my opinion. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The matter is closed. The user gets the point, and Rklawton obviously feels the apology is an implied retraction. Besides, as I discussed with Rklawton, it was not necessary to block anyway per WP:DOLT. WP:NLT is not a block-on-sight-without-thinking rule. Pestering him about undoing his own action isn't going to achieve anything neither with him nor with ANI. Neither is accusing him of a vendetta against Raeky when none is present. He blocked a user on Raeky's request and has been discussing colloquially with Raeky. The AFD was withdrawn by Raeky after a slew of keep !votes. This matter is largely put to rest at this point. After ec: Per Thumerward below.--v/r - TP 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hysterics aside, I'd agree that the apology was somewhat specifically not a retraction, and as such this is still NLT territory. But a far better approach would be for someone to politely request such a retraction, rather than to jump back in with a block on an editor still stinging from a sharp cluebat application. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I've done so. I don't really think it matters much, so won't likely be involved further whatever happens but respect not everyone agrees so thought it best to give Czbiker the opportunity to clear this up. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think Raeky's comments were unnecessarily nasty. They reflect a problem I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia: too many editors think they can say whatever they want about writers who promote unusual ideas - human dignity be damned. Shuker does deserve to be treated as a real person; there's no need to be so snarky and drown him in alphabet soup. I do know a little bit about Shuker's writings, and he's one of the more reasonable writers in his field. He certainly has some romantic notions, but he's also shown a willingness to reassess and even debunk cryptozoolgical claims. (See [1], for example.)

I'm not saying that we should actively promote Fortean claims on Wikipedia; I'm just saying that, sometimes, we need to tone down the rhetoric. Especially with regards to living people. Zagalejo^^^ 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I really wish people could be more mindful of the need to treat article subjects with respect, and not just in this case. What went on at Talk:Karl Shuker (and the AfD) was over the top and uncalled for, but not unique. Editors with a COI are not always conversant with how Wikipedia works. Education rather than instant attack is always better. One of the most pernicious outcomes of the exponential increase of paid editing and using Wikipededia for corporate advertisement is that as editors, we become fed up and jaded. Our first reaction is to stamp on the head of anyone with a COI. I know I've been sorely tempted myself. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen M Cohen

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

---

Talk:Bbb23 Complained about my first edit and requested that I find other sources. I did a lot of research and found a current article with Forbes and without doing an edit, I Open the Stephen M. Cohen talk page for discussion on a consensus with an ending date of February 10, 2013. Talk:Bbb23 was not present or commented as part of this consensus.

One editor wanted a second source which I was unable to find on the specific subject of court case importance. Since I was not able to find an article, I agreed to remove that part.

When the time period ended I did my edit. Talk:Bbb23 immediately jumped in on my edit stating that my source was a blog. However, the Forbes article was not a blog and was the published article. I commented on Talk:Bbb23 and wrote the following:

I mean no disrespect but it seems to me that you do not want anyone editing the Cohen page even when it is properly sourced. Maybe a arbitration request is the proper way to resolve this.

I am a new editor and I am trying to make sure of the accuracy of the information with a neutral point of view as I do not have a conflict of interest.

I now understand why so many editors have left Wikipedia according to the article "Criticism of Wikipedia" subsection, "Complaints about administrator abuse." I find myself wondering if Wikipedia really wants new editors who follow the rules set by Wikipedia. Vanessamx (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Bbb23 wrote: I won't be able to respond to this until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) That is ok, please enjoy your night. Forbes deleted the article however I was able to find it again at [5] and you have to search Cohen. Vanessamx (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) As of this moment in time, I have had no response of any kind. I am a new editor and need some help resolving this matter. Vanessamx (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Being a new editor is hard. I would note that frankly this is not an ANI issue. This notice board is with problems with behaviors..and this falls flat..That being said if you want to post why you think this person is notable on my talk page I will discuss with you and help you make the article if it is indeed notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a point of order - I'm sure Bbb23 will see this thread and give you his point of view, hopefully in way that we can resolve everything and encourage you to continue working with us, but reverting edits and discussing them on talk pages is not an administrator role - anyone, generally speaking, can do that. Administrators are responsible for stronger actions such as protecting pages and blocking users, which isn't required here, and even then they're not generally allowed to do those things on pages they've had close recent involvement in, except in special cases such as vandalism, which this isn't. One further point I should make is that, ever since the Siegenthaler Incident, and many incidents since, we have to be very strict about what we put in biographies of living people, and the sources, especially for a subject like Cohen who is notable for something considered negative, have to be absolutely impeccable. If it upsets you that your edits get reverted because our quality threshold is high, that's a shame, but there is generally a good reason behind it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• As HIAB rightfully says, ANI is not the place for a content dispute. And as Ritchie rightfully says, sourcing for material, particularly controversial material, about BLPs has to be of the highest quality. That said, I apologize to Vanessa for not getting back to her. There's nothing worse, particularly for a new editor, than to be ignored.

The article has problems, even without Vanessa's edits. Putting that aside for a moment, the article says that Cohen owes a man named Kremen at least $65M for hijacking a domain name. Cohen says he has no assets. However, Kremen suspects that Cohen is hiding money and has been going after members of Cohen's family in an attempt to recover it. The last sentence before Vanessa added material discussed a lawsuit filed by Kremen against a cousin of Cohen's. The source, which I'm unfamiliar with, is apparently a news source in the adult entertainment industry (the domain that was hijacked was sex.com). Strangely enough, the article never mentions Cohen's cousin by name, although it says that the cousin's last name is also Cohen.

Vanessa then edited the article and said that the cousin (now with a name) was "granted summary judgment against Kremen" because Kreman didn't prove that Kremen had illegally transferred assets to the cousin. Vanessa also said that the cousin was now suing Kremen for the same amount that Kremen had been suing the cousin for. Vanessa cited to three sources for this material. Two of them were primary sources, copies of different rulings in the case Kremen filed against the cousin (neither involved a suit by the cousin against Kremen, although it's possible that the cousin filed a counterclaim). The third source was a secondary source written by an attorney on the Forbes blog. It was clearly an opinion piece and therefore could not be used. The combination of the three sources was inadequate per our policy to support the material, which is mostly why I reverted it. Also, the one secondary source (the blog) doesn't say anything about the cousin suing Kremen.

Finally, one thing that puzzles me is Vanessa keeps talking about a Forbes article that isn't the blog post by the attorney. I still haven't seen a link to an article that might be a reliable source. At this point, without reliable secondary coverage, the material shouldn't be included in the article. Also, depending on if secondary coverage could be found, the material probably isn't even noteworthy enough to be included. (Vanessa's purpose in adding the material seems to be related more to legal concepts about judgment creditors and debtors and third parties than it is to the subject of the article.)

I'm sorry for this long reply, but it is intended mostly for Vanessa's benefit. This is really a dispute that belongs on the article talk page or perhaps at WP:BLPN, not here. Nomoskedasticity was engaging Vanessa on the article talk page, and I made a couple of brief comments. I suggest that Vanessa return to the article talk page rather than post here. She still needs to obtain a consensus for her changes. If she can't obtain that, the usual dispute resolution mechanisms are available to her.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First I want to thank Hell in a Bucket and I will take you up on your offer.

Second, thank you Bob for responding. I will move this now to the article talk page. Where I hope we can continue this conversation. Vanessamx (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2013 (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.

Serbian anonymous (at Bunjevci etc)

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

---

An anonymous editor using Serbian dynamic IPs has been pestering myself and some other Croatian users for a while now because of a series of edit wars related to the Croatian-Serbian nationalist hot topic issues - Bunjevci and similar.

• 24.135.66.10 (talk · contribs)
• 24.135.73.223 (talk · contribs)
• 94.189.197.200 (talk · contribs)

The anonymous editor has engaged in a vaguely valid content dispute, but their behavior has deteriorated to the point they're pretty much disrupting Wikipedia to prove their point - persistently calling people names, taunting them, saying explicitly that they'll evade blocks. Three other Croatian users (User:IvanOS, User:Sokac121, User:Shokatz) have now complained to me about it because I'm an administrator. In parallel, I've tried to explain WP:ARBMAC concepts to the anonymous user (as well as at least one of the three complainants earlier), to no avail. At this point the anonymous user has pretty much crossed the line, but I'm still wary of wielding the axe myself because of the painfully obvious escalation potential. Two of the three users told me they think it's User:Oldhouse2012, another said they think it's User:Nado158. I told them to ask at SPI, but none of them have come forward yet with such a filing - I'm guessing they can't put their finger on it - it could really be a third person still. I'd appreciate some assistance from an uninvolved administrator. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt, based on a number of bits of evidence, that they are all Oldhouse2012. I have lodged an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012. Apparently there is no point in CU, but the IP should be blocked as a sock. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are now four, 24.135.65.205 is now active. Some help would be appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First that's a lie and second I have a new address,so I don't care.

• 24.135.65.205 (talk · contribs)

*facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2013 (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.

Immediate return to personal attacks

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 HiLo48 just returned from a ban for violating WP:NPA, and immediately returned to form. The trademark of this user seems to be that all those who don't agree are simply too stupid. At the talk page of Jesus, several users questioned his insistence on a theory that all academics reject, and asked him to provide a source for his alternative theory. While he never gave a single sources, this is a sample of what he gave us instead [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I wouldn't say that any of these is particularly harsh, but the pattern is rather worrying when a user consistently refuse to provide any WP:RS and instead spends all his time commenting on the intelligence of other users.Jeppiz (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the comments don't seem like the usual problem HiLo48 has been accused of. Instead he seems to be saying that people don't understand what he has written. Whether or not that is a good response, or even correct, it isn't a personal attack. - Bilby (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the user so you're likely correct. Still, constantly commenting on the (low) intelligence of other users is hardly constructive.Jeppiz (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, I don't see anything worthy of administrative action in the diffs provided. Even if he could surely spend his time more constructively seeking sources in support of its argument instead of self-complaining about not being understood.Cavarrone (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks are evident in the diffs. Jeppiz, I'm sorry but you need to grow a thicker skin if you think this merits a further block (not a ban, as you wrote.) If you find HiLo abrasive, just ignore him. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all. And Kim, I certainly don't take it personally (particularly as most of these comments aren't directed at me...) but as you can see from my confusing ban/block, I'm not so familiar with the policy that I know exactly what constitutes a personal attack and what constitutes a relevant argument. I still believe that only commenting on other users' intelligence is neither helpful nor relevant, but if you say it's not personal attacks under WP:NPA, I take your word for it.Jeppiz (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but would suggest not making this a storm in a teacup. I recommend the closure of this thread just to save time and move on. By tomorrow it will be forgotten. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, closing the thread is fine by me.Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (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.

RfC close goes beyond the RfC question

A recent RfC on Frank L. VanderSloot was closed by User:Lord Roem in a way that I believe exceeds the question posed. The question was, should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of the article? LordRoem has decreed that the term must be removed from the entire article in relation to VanderSloot's current activities. Discussion at this section has not led to a satisfactory outcome in this regard. The key point is that LordRoem ought not close an RfC in a way that goes beyond the question that was posed; as things stand, he is using his status as an admin to dictate content (together with implicit threat of blocks), instead of determining the consensus of the RfC participants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the Frank L. VanderSloot article. I suggested either talk page discussions or an RfC to resolve an apparently long-running dispute there on the term "multi-level marketing". After discussion calmed down, essentially everything that was going to be said was said, and in response to concerns that a contested phrase remained in the protected version of the article, I closed the RfC. After reading through all the comments, I found no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the WP:BLP subject (thus possibly to Wikipedia as a whole) in the lede, then the same term would be equally contentious and potentially harmful anywhere in the article. I am glad he actually provided that guidance rather than making us simply guess at the ramifications of closing the discussion on the lede itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admin's actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards. WP:BLP does not require exclusion for material of WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific WP:BLP implications was properly invoked. Noting further that some wish to state in Wikipedia's voice that the company was an "illegal pyramid scheme" or to ascribe the "illegal" as an adjective at all on this BLP requires that WP:BLPCRIME be followed - and since no such legal finding by a court is cited, the policy appears to bar that claim in any case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "term dealt with" was, I believe the words "illegal pyramid scheme" used by Arthur Rubin a few lines above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD but was acceptable in the article as a WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No consensus on a WP:BLP defaults to the safer option. That would mean not to use it in the lead. BLP RFC's work a little different. No consensus doesn't necessarily default to 'status quo' like everywhere else.--v/r - TP 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. That was actually what I was aiming for with my close (as I mentioned undue weight at the top of the section) but then never delineated that issue. I didn't intend the close to bar the term, and gave the wrong answer when asked that. Looking back on what I wrote, I feel that I was trying to say that using the term in the lead would probably be undue weight. I apologize for not being clearer earlier in both the close itself and the comments here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- but we might still contend with the view (e.g. FPaS) that the close was wrong in broader terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the RfC decision. I have outlined the reasons for my objections on the article talk page.[8] Either the RfC should be reopened or this should go to ArbCom. I also find it a bit odd that the admin asked if there were any objections, and when an objection was raised (based on the admins lack of experience), the objection was ignored.[9] Why ask the question if the answer doesn't matter? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology? Well, okay, but I'm not seeing the closure being either reverted or updated. NE Ent 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial closure of the RfC was correct as no consensus, if a little (lot) long-winded. But the RfC was about including the term MLM in the lead. Extending that discussion outside of the lead to try to ban the term from the entire article was over-reaching. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to to try to justify the RfC decision post facto based on WP:UNDUE when that issue was never raised during the RfC. If the weight issue is critical, it should have been discussed and a consensus reached on that point in particular, rather than being ramrodded by administrative decree after the fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP's gives administrators wide discretion when determining consensus to introduce elements that were not brought up in the RFC when they should have been because of the legal and real world damage that can be done to living people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within a certain scope, of course, yes. Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within reason, yes, exactly.--v/r - TP 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Several admins have passed through this BLP but refused to get further involved. I believe that Lord Roem should be given some latitude here, given that he's the only one willing to wade into this long-running edit war. For example, Barek, another admin, wrote this about the BLP: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Plenty of others have expressed similar sentiments. Andrew³²⁷ 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other admins did get involved; they've responded numerous times to issues of edit warring, noticeboard requests, etc. They didn't get more deeply involved because an RFC hadn't been filed until this one. For context, Andrewman327 is an involved party and one of those who had been campaigning hard for removing the term MLM, so it's not surprising to see that he advises giving unlimited authority to the admin who supported his POV. However, willingness to become involved in an RFC would not be an excuse for prematurely closing an RFC, reaching erroneous conclusions, or overstepping boundaries. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nothing in WP:BLP says that; certainly nothing says they can supervote RFCs. NE Ent 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NE Ent. Andrew, I'd say that fact argues that LR moved in on an 11 day old, active Rfc and made what appears to many here to be a hasty call that is well beyond the scope of the dispute, which combined with a threat to block, comes off as a highly top-down, authoritarian decision... instead of the consensus-based process the encyclopedia is founded upon. I am disturbed by the precedent this sets, made by an admin given the tools only weeks ago. Seems to me we are beyond "Within reason." Jusdafax 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff: " Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions: "That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people." and "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs: " Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard. Methods of resolving issues on the noticeboard include correcting clear violations of the BLP policy, working to bring about well-focused, knowledgeable participation in discussion of more borderline cases, and ensuring the final resolution of all BLP disputes complies with the BLP policy and takes account of the competing considerations that may apply to a given dispute." These are all linked in WP:BLP, so yes it does give administrators wide discretion.--v/r - TP 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TPs statement was wide discretion when determining consensus (emphasis mine). LR didn't delete the article and given the sourcing by reliable sources, referencing VanderSloot's pyramid / MLM business is not a "clear violation." Can and should an admin act decisively and quickly to correct egregious BLP violations? Of course. Does that mean supervoting RfC discussing gray areas? Absolutely not. NE Ent 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means and it has been upheld and discussed on RFAs countless times. It's a standard consideration for any admin closing an AFD and any admin working a BLP RFC. Local consensus on a topic does not supersede WMF policy on BLPs and admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is enforced. As I bolded above, admins are required to enforce BLP policy and that takes precedence over procedural concerns such as closing an RFC by only summarizing the discussion or "sticking to the question".--v/r - TP 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just making stuff up. Show me a case when an editor was desysoped because they didn't enforce BLP policy; the AC case was about a deletion, not an Rfc close. Obviously we don't make policy at Rfa. NE Ent 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We discuss and scrutinize candidates understanding of policy at RFAs. In fact, I think there was a question in my first RFA about BLPs. Anyway, only 1 of 3 AC cases quoted was about the technical deletion of an article. But deletion of content and deletion of an article serve the same purpose. One just involved more content. I should ask you the same. Show me a case where an admin was desysoped for cautious interpretation of BLP.--v/r - TP 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Where is this headed, folks? Lord Roem has repudiated his interpretation of his own close as it applies to the body of the article, but he has conspicuously failed to revert or revise his close. Other uninvolved admins have advised that the close was indeed inappropriate in that (and perhaps other) respect(s). The lack of clarity is now facilitating further edit-warring on the article (with editors who want MLM removed exploiting the confusion, imo). An RfC is supposed to settle the dispute -- but Lord Roem's close has definitively failed to achieve that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say give Lord Roem a little more time to revise it. In the meantime, I've protect it until he does; if that's helpful. If he doesn't by tomorrow, I'll step in and change it myself with my own timestamp.--v/r - TP 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity's question is apt. The Rfc close itself is at issue here. LR's actions should be reversed across-the-board, period, as I see this matter. The Rfc was closed early, and an incorrect decision was made at LR's own partial admission, and now LR leaves a mess for others to wade through. (Striking, issue clarified by LR.) Not a promising beginning for a new admin. We need a broader canvass here, so let's open this for discussion. Therefore the section below. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per TParis' note on my page, and after reflecting on the comments raised in this thread, I have revised the RfC closure rationale. The new rationale is limited to the way the lead is phrased. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Reverted. You either get to close the discussion or have an opinion in the discussion. Not both. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I explained to NE Ent above, WP:BLP and WP:Arbcom give admins great leeway in determining consensus on BLP RFCs. Reverting an admin's BLP close isn't going to do you any favors if this matter gets to Arbcom and that idea has already been thrown around several times. Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns."--v/r - TP 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of the Frank L. VanderSloot Rfc

• Support - As proposer. This sort of close is contrary to the consensus-based core mission of Wikipedia itelf. I also support a "trouting" for rookie administrator Lord Roem. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been sufficient trouting; LR has responded to the community feedback in reevaluating his closing statement. NE Ent 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one is trying to take advantage of this confusion, as has been implied above. People simply feel as if the situation was resolved, but have different impressions as to how, so have been acting accordingly. The page is now locked again to ensure this stops, which was a good step. Many editors weighed in, with a large amount of good thought. Let's try and be collaborative rather than combative on this Wikipedia project, and move forward from the revised RFC close no matter the result. Additional RFCs or a move to arbcom may occur, but let us decide this after our immediate concern has been addressed. No one argued about Lord Roem being involved until he started saying things that certain parties disagreed with and things started leaning away from them in terms of the weight of arguments. It is natural for a few of the stauncher supporters of having MLM in the lead will be unhappy with the decision, but that in and of itself is not grounds to throw the RFC result out in its entirety. I'm not fighting for either side, I would just like to see this official action brought to its eventual conclusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" it, I stated it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING applies in spades. There is no consensus above that Lord Roem exceeded his reasonable discretion as an administrator, and of you wish to have him removed, Arbcom is thataway. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No one is talking about having LR "removed," at Arbcom, like a community ban. This is a proposal for the mere reversal of a bad call, the too-early close of an Rfc. Why not let the community decide on that issue? Jusdafax 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The RfC decision was flawed on multiple levels and closed prematurely. The core claim of the admin's closure summary was the belief that the term multi-level marketing carries inherently negative connotations and therefore should not be used in an article for that reason, despite the fact that the MLM detail is widely and reliably sourced. It was an arbitrary and puzzling decision without basis in fact and which conflicted with the consensus view of the outside editors who commented on the issue -- the very people who the RfC was intended to solicit and whose opinion should have carried the most weight (instead they were essentially ignored). This decision (a bureaucratic fiat) also sets a precedent that has far reaching implications for virtually every article in which MLM is mentioned in WP (and there are dozens if not hundreds that do so). The admin has now backslid on their conclusions several times so that now even the rationale for the decision is unclear. Either the RfC should reopened or this needs to go to ArbCom. The former would seem to be most appropriate at this stage. For full disclosure, I was one of the previously involved parties participating in the RfC (as were Andrew and Collect, who argued for removal of MLM). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The summary for Lord Roem's closure, despite being amended, is still based on a fundamentally flawed argument; i.e., Lord Roem said "there is no consensus as to whether this term (MLM) is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality". This is a gobsmacking conclusion -- it is simply wrong at its core. There is no way that this conclusion can withstand scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a reading of that discussion, I don't agree. I've read through most of the comments there, and only a handful of people commented on whether MLM was a negative term. You indicated it wasn't, and Jeremy112233 indicated it was, amidst all of it, and a few other people made much more vague allusions. Considering how few of all the participants in the discussion commented on that particular thing, I think LR's assessment that there was no consensus on that answer is fair. If you believe that conclusion is 'wrong at its core', can you point to where consensus on the negative nature of the term has been clearly established? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument was that there was a consensus viewpoint that the term is not intrinsically negative; not the opposite as you stated above. I base that assessment on the the nearly unanimous comments (4 out of 5) from outside editors who commented (I ignored the fifth because it came from a newbie and didn't make much sense). The comments were as follows:[10]

1. Prhartcom: "The term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations."
2. Capitalismojo: "MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability."
3. Jusdafax: "I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough … Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives."
4. FurrySings: "VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said".

The RfC was intended to solicit views from outside editors, yet these views were ignored. Why? The FTC acknowledges that MLM is a legal and recognized business model. The assertion that the term MLM is intrinsically negative is opinion-based, not fact based, and it is a red herring. No one presented any evidence whatsoever to adequately support such a conclusion. The negative connotations angle was not a central point at the outset of the RfC; if it was, more people surely would have commented on that detail specifically. If we were to go back to RfC and focus on this point specifically, it would wither on the vine. The admin's summary of the RfC indicated that a consensus supports using "MLM" in the body text of the article but that the term shouldn't be in the lead because it might have negative connotations. How can the term have negative connotations if it's in the lead but not when it's in the body text. The conclusion makes no sense at all -- flawed at its core IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP needs to move forward, and Lord Roem's amended RFC closure enables it to do just that. It is within policy and there isn't exactly a long line of admins chomping at the bit to get involved in this fight. Let the RFC stand and allow editors to try to collaborate on remaining issues. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The aim here should be to achieve long-term stability and resolve the conflict conclusively. Those aims have not been accomplished, as the admin's decision appears to have created more problems than it has solved. Reopening the hastily closed RfC would allow the matter to be resolved properly. Surely that would be a good thing. As for the number of admins who might be "chomping (sic) at the bit" to get involved, I am not aware of any list that provides this information, but regardless, I don't see how admin availability would be a hindrance. Seems like a very odd assertion to make as the basis for not re-opening the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry at Japanese articles

Disruptive editing has continued at various articles after JoshuSasori's indefinite block for harrassment and disruption. The MO continues to be edit warring at Japanese articles (especially film related), stacking RMs and hounding the same editor. Recently used IPs include 124.102.61.115 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.68.84 (talk · contribs · count), 124.85.41.187 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.5.121 (talk · contribs · count) and 123.225.73.211 (talk · contribs · count). Affected articles include Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle, The Downfall of Osen, Taboo (1999 film), Shōtarō Ikenami, and Outrage Beyond. See also this previous report and the SPI.
Needless to say this has been very discouraging for the primary victim and disruptive to the affected articles and discussions. I suggest blocking the above IPs and semi-protecting the articles, and, unfortunately, their talk pages. I'm heading out so I won't be able to give this the attention it deserves. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I recommend re-protecting Tales of Moonlight and Rain and its talk page per this threat to resume their behavior there "sooner or later".--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another one, 123.224.162.194 (talk · contribs · count), that reverted my removal of some OR on the article jigai.[11] The existence of a dynamic IP following me around Wikipedia makes it very difficult to edit, since I can't monitor which pages they are reverting me on. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And another one: 123.225.11.135 (talk · contribs · count). This one didn't follow me, but did vote in a JoshuSasori-esque fashion on an RM. I have also noted that the nominator there, Mysterious Island (talk · contribs · count), also appeared immediately after JoshuSasori got blocked and has since made over 1,000 edits, all of them the same type of edits JoshuSasori made (RMs, removing macrons, etc.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These IPs aren't exactly dynamic as there's a clear range he's operating within. A couple of well constructed range blocks might eliminate the problem for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock has now reverted my removal of inaccurate fringe material from jigai three times[12][13][14], and I can't revert them again for a while without violating 3RR. How much longer to I have to put up with this?? elvenscout742 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protect that article as well. I've gone back and undone that edit, apologies if anything decent in there got nuked as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think Mysterious Island is JoshuSasori. The edit summaries follow a different style.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-reporting

I have been accused of WP:BLUDGEON at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Brandon Brown. One of the recommendations for being accused of such an offense is to "ask an uninvolved administrator their opinion" and a link is provided here. Naturally, if my actions are disruptive to the process I want to correct them. Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - first and foremost, thank you for self reporting this here. My initial comments are that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a policy... all the same it is an essay that makes sense in many respects. However in this case I think it is fair of you to say that there may be some difference in interpration of how people should be applying WP:VICTIM. I am not commenting on which interpretation is correct, as both sides have merit (yes, this article is about the crime, but the article starts with what is essentially the BIO of the victim). I don't think I would have said that you were bludgeoning the discussion myself, but I would suggest that now that another editor has mentioned it to you that it may be better to take the WP:VICTIM discussion out and put it at a higher level {{comment}}, perhaps above the !votes to explain your view on how/if that policy applies, rather than replying to each !voter who uses that link in their argument.  7  05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's an extent to which participants at AFD are more sensitive to WP:BLUDGEON, given AFD is provided as the primary example of where bludgeoning might occur. Generally speaking, though, responding to every comment that states a position contrary to your own will be seen as "bludgeoning". From what I can see, you have been the first responder to every delete !vote there (except for the last couple after WP:BLUDGEON was pointed out). Has your activity there breached the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON? Sure, maybe. Is it a hanging offence? No, not really (at least I hope not; I'm sure I've been guilty of it a few times!). It's just seen as generally not collegial. I see you've not been tempted to respond to the last few comments - probably best. And  7 's advice above is good. As you noted there, the essay says "it is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question". No need to respond to every one. Stalwart111 08:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Questioning every vote that is contrary to yours is also considered to be badgering. Make your policy -based point the first time, and AGF that all goes nicely --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On a totally and utterly unrelated note, could somebody trout Barada (talk · contribs) for having an image in his signature, violating the guideline in WP:SIG#Images Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't trout him, but I approached him as any editor could/should have (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chowkatsun/Beatles MoS sock

Pretty sure it's him again. For context see this SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an indef block in place for a few minutes. I have no idea where it went. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC close goes beyond the RfC question

A recent RfC on Frank L. VanderSloot was closed by User:Lord Roem in a way that I believe exceeds the question posed. The question was, should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of the article? LordRoem has decreed that the term must be removed from the entire article in relation to VanderSloot's current activities. Discussion at this section has not led to a satisfactory outcome in this regard. The key point is that LordRoem ought not close an RfC in a way that goes beyond the question that was posed; as things stand, he is using his status as an admin to dictate content (together with implicit threat of blocks), instead of determining the consensus of the RfC participants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the Frank L. VanderSloot article. I suggested either talk page discussions or an RfC to resolve an apparently long-running dispute there on the term "multi-level marketing". After discussion calmed down, essentially everything that was going to be said was said, and in response to concerns that a contested phrase remained in the protected version of the article, I closed the RfC. After reading through all the comments, I found no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the WP:BLP subject (thus possibly to Wikipedia as a whole) in the lede, then the same term would be equally contentious and potentially harmful anywhere in the article. I am glad he actually provided that guidance rather than making us simply guess at the ramifications of closing the discussion on the lede itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admin's actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards. WP:BLP does not require exclusion for material of WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific WP:BLP implications was properly invoked. Noting further that some wish to state in Wikipedia's voice that the company was an "illegal pyramid scheme" or to ascribe the "illegal" as an adjective at all on this BLP requires that WP:BLPCRIME be followed - and since no such legal finding by a court is cited, the policy appears to bar that claim in any case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "term dealt with" was, I believe the words "illegal pyramid scheme" used by Arthur Rubin a few lines above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD but was acceptable in the article as a WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No consensus on a WP:BLP defaults to the safer option. That would mean not to use it in the lead. BLP RFC's work a little different. No consensus doesn't necessarily default to 'status quo' like everywhere else.--v/r - TP 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. That was actually what I was aiming for with my close (as I mentioned undue weight at the top of the section) but then never delineated that issue. I didn't intend the close to bar the term, and gave the wrong answer when asked that. Looking back on what I wrote, I feel that I was trying to say that using the term in the lead would probably be undue weight. I apologize for not being clearer earlier in both the close itself and the comments here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- but we might still contend with the view (e.g. FPaS) that the close was wrong in broader terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the RfC decision. I have outlined the reasons for my objections on the article talk page.[15] Either the RfC should be reopened or this should go to ArbCom. I also find it a bit odd that the admin asked if there were any objections, and when an objection was raised (based on the admins lack of experience), the objection was ignored.[16] Why ask the question if the answer doesn't matter? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology? Well, okay, but I'm not seeing the closure being either reverted or updated. NE Ent 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial closure of the RfC was correct as no consensus, if a little (lot) long-winded. But the RfC was about including the term MLM in the lead. Extending that discussion outside of the lead to try to ban the term from the entire article was over-reaching. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to to try to justify the RfC decision post facto based on WP:UNDUE when that issue was never raised during the RfC. If the weight issue is critical, it should have been discussed and a consensus reached on that point in particular, rather than being ramrodded by administrative decree after the fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP's gives administrators wide discretion when determining consensus to introduce elements that were not brought up in the RFC when they should have been because of the legal and real world damage that can be done to living people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within a certain scope, of course, yes. Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within reason, yes, exactly.--v/r - TP 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Several admins have passed through this BLP but refused to get further involved. I believe that Lord Roem should be given some latitude here, given that he's the only one willing to wade into this long-running edit war. For example, Barek, another admin, wrote this about the BLP: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Plenty of others have expressed similar sentiments. Andrew³²⁷ 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other admins did get involved; they've responded numerous times to issues of edit warring, noticeboard requests, etc. They didn't get more deeply involved because an RFC hadn't been filed until this one. For context, Andrewman327 is an involved party and one of those who had been campaigning hard for removing the term MLM, so it's not surprising to see that he advises giving unlimited authority to the admin who supported his POV. However, willingness to become involved in an RFC would not be an excuse for prematurely closing an RFC, reaching erroneous conclusions, or overstepping boundaries. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nothing in WP:BLP says that; certainly nothing says they can supervote RFCs. NE Ent 19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NE Ent. Andrew, I'd say that fact argues that LR moved in on an 11 day old, active Rfc and made what appears to many here to be a hasty call that is well beyond the scope of the dispute, which combined with a threat to block, comes off as a highly top-down, authoritarian decision... instead of the consensus-based process the encyclopedia is founded upon. I am disturbed by the precedent this sets, made by an admin given the tools only weeks ago. Seems to me we are beyond "Within reason." Jusdafax 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff: " Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions: "That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people." and "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs: " Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard. Methods of resolving issues on the noticeboard include correcting clear violations of the BLP policy, working to bring about well-focused, knowledgeable participation in discussion of more borderline cases, and ensuring the final resolution of all BLP disputes complies with the BLP policy and takes account of the competing considerations that may apply to a given dispute." These are all linked in WP:BLP, so yes it does give administrators wide discretion.--v/r - TP 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TPs statement was wide discretion when determining consensus (emphasis mine). LR didn't delete the article and given the sourcing by reliable sources, referencing VanderSloot's pyramid / MLM business is not a "clear violation." Can and should an admin act decisively and quickly to correct egregious BLP violations? Of course. Does that mean supervoting RfC discussing gray areas? Absolutely not. NE Ent 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means and it has been upheld and discussed on RFAs countless times. It's a standard consideration for any admin closing an AFD and any admin working a BLP RFC. Local consensus on a topic does not supersede WMF policy on BLPs and admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is enforced. As I bolded above, admins are required to enforce BLP policy and that takes precedence over procedural concerns such as closing an RFC by only summarizing the discussion or "sticking to the question".--v/r - TP 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just making stuff up. Show me a case when an editor was desysoped because they didn't enforce BLP policy; the AC case was about a deletion, not an Rfc close. Obviously we don't make policy at Rfa. NE Ent 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We discuss and scrutinize candidates understanding of policy at RFAs. In fact, I think there was a question in my first RFA about BLPs. Anyway, only 1 of 3 AC cases quoted was about the technical deletion of an article. But deletion of content and deletion of an article serve the same purpose. One just involved more content. I should ask you the same. Show me a case where an admin was desysoped for cautious interpretation of BLP.--v/r - TP 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Where is this headed, folks? Lord Roem has repudiated his interpretation of his own close as it applies to the body of the article, but he has conspicuously failed to revert or revise his close. Other uninvolved admins have advised that the close was indeed inappropriate in that (and perhaps other) respect(s). The lack of clarity is now facilitating further edit-warring on the article (with editors who want MLM removed exploiting the confusion, imo). An RfC is supposed to settle the dispute -- but Lord Roem's close has definitively failed to achieve that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say give Lord Roem a little more time to revise it. In the meantime, I've protect it until he does; if that's helpful. If he doesn't by tomorrow, I'll step in and change it myself with my own timestamp.--v/r - TP 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity's question is apt. The Rfc close itself is at issue here. LR's actions should be reversed across-the-board, period, as I see this matter. The Rfc was closed early, and an incorrect decision was made at LR's own partial admission, and now LR leaves a mess for others to wade through. (Striking, issue clarified by LR.) Not a promising beginning for a new admin. We need a broader canvass here, so let's open this for discussion. Therefore the section below. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per TParis' note on my page, and after reflecting on the comments raised in this thread, I have revised the RfC closure rationale. The new rationale is limited to the way the lead is phrased. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Reverted. You either get to close the discussion or have an opinion in the discussion. Not both. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I explained to NE Ent above, WP:BLP and WP:Arbcom give admins great leeway in determining consensus on BLP RFCs. Reverting an admin's BLP close isn't going to do you any favors if this matter gets to Arbcom and that idea has already been thrown around several times. Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns."--v/r - TP 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of the Frank L. VanderSloot Rfc

• Support - As proposer. This sort of close is contrary to the consensus-based core mission of Wikipedia itelf. I also support a "trouting" for rookie administrator Lord Roem. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been sufficient trouting; LR has responded to the community feedback in reevaluating his closing statement. NE Ent 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one is trying to take advantage of this confusion, as has been implied above. People simply feel as if the situation was resolved, but have different impressions as to how, so have been acting accordingly. The page is now locked again to ensure this stops, which was a good step. Many editors weighed in, with a large amount of good thought. Let's try and be collaborative rather than combative on this Wikipedia project, and move forward from the revised RFC close no matter the result. Additional RFCs or a move to arbcom may occur, but let us decide this after our immediate concern has been addressed. No one argued about Lord Roem being involved until he started saying things that certain parties disagreed with and things started leaning away from them in terms of the weight of arguments. It is natural for a few of the stauncher supporters of having MLM in the lead will be unhappy with the decision, but that in and of itself is not grounds to throw the RFC result out in its entirety. I'm not fighting for either side, I would just like to see this official action brought to its eventual conclusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" it, I stated it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING applies in spades. There is no consensus above that Lord Roem exceeded his reasonable discretion as an administrator, and of you wish to have him removed, Arbcom is thataway. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• No one is talking about having LR "removed," at Arbcom, like a community ban. This is a proposal for the mere reversal of a bad call, the too-early close of an Rfc. Why not let the community decide on that issue? Jusdafax 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The RfC decision was flawed on multiple levels and closed prematurely. The core claim of the admin's closure summary was the belief that the term multi-level marketing carries inherently negative connotations and therefore should not be used in an article for that reason, despite the fact that the MLM detail is widely and reliably sourced. It was an arbitrary and puzzling decision without basis in fact and which conflicted with the consensus view of the outside editors who commented on the issue -- the very people who the RfC was intended to solicit and whose opinion should have carried the most weight (instead they were essentially ignored). This decision (a bureaucratic fiat) also sets a precedent that has far reaching implications for virtually every article in which MLM is mentioned in WP (and there are dozens if not hundreds that do so). The admin has now backslid on their conclusions several times so that now even the rationale for the decision is unclear. Either the RfC should reopened or this needs to go to ArbCom. The former would seem to be most appropriate at this stage. For full disclosure, I was one of the previously involved parties participating in the RfC (as were Andrew and Collect, who argued for removal of MLM). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The summary for Lord Roem's closure, despite being amended, is still based on a fundamentally flawed argument; i.e., Lord Roem said "there is no consensus as to whether this term (MLM) is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality". This is a gobsmacking conclusion -- it is simply wrong at its core. There is no way that this conclusion can withstand scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a reading of that discussion, I don't agree. I've read through most of the comments there, and only a handful of people commented on whether MLM was a negative term. You indicated it wasn't, and Jeremy112233 indicated it was, amidst all of it, and a few other people made much more vague allusions. Considering how few of all the participants in the discussion commented on that particular thing, I think LR's assessment that there was no consensus on that answer is fair. If you believe that conclusion is 'wrong at its core', can you point to where consensus on the negative nature of the term has been clearly established? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument was that there was a consensus viewpoint that the term is not intrinsically negative; not the opposite as you stated above. I base that assessment on the the nearly unanimous comments (4 out of 5) from outside editors who commented (I ignored the fifth because it came from a newbie and didn't make much sense). The comments were as follows:[17]

1. Prhartcom: "The term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations."
2. Capitalismojo: "MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability."
3. Jusdafax: "I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough … Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives."
4. FurrySings: "VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said".

The RfC was intended to solicit views from outside editors, yet these views were ignored. Why? The FTC acknowledges that MLM is a legal and recognized business model. The assertion that the term MLM is intrinsically negative is opinion-based, not fact based, and it is a red herring. No one presented any evidence whatsoever to adequately support such a conclusion. The negative connotations angle was not a central point at the outset of the RfC; if it was, more people surely would have commented on that detail specifically. If we were to go back to RfC and focus on this point specifically, it would wither on the vine. The admin's summary of the RfC indicated that a consensus supports using "MLM" in the body text of the article but that the term shouldn't be in the lead because it might have negative connotations. How can the term have negative connotations if it's in the lead but not when it's in the body text. The conclusion makes no sense at all -- flawed at its core IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP needs to move forward, and Lord Roem's amended RFC closure enables it to do just that. It is within policy and there isn't exactly a long line of admins chomping at the bit to get involved in this fight. Let the RFC stand and allow editors to try to collaborate on remaining issues. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The aim here should be to achieve long-term stability and resolve the conflict conclusively. Those aims have not been accomplished, as the admin's decision appears to have created more problems than it has solved. Reopening the hastily closed RfC would allow the matter to be resolved properly. Surely that would be a good thing. As for the number of admins who might be "chomping (sic) at the bit" to get involved, I am not aware of any list that provides this information, but regardless, I don't see how admin availability would be a hindrance. Seems like a very odd assertion to make as the basis for not re-opening the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry at Japanese articles

Disruptive editing has continued at various articles after JoshuSasori's indefinite block for harrassment and disruption. The MO continues to be edit warring at Japanese articles (especially film related), stacking RMs and hounding the same editor. Recently used IPs include 124.102.61.115 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.68.84 (talk · contribs · count), 124.85.41.187 (talk · contribs · count), 123.225.5.121 (talk · contribs · count) and 123.225.73.211 (talk · contribs · count). Affected articles include Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle, The Downfall of Osen, Taboo (1999 film), Shōtarō Ikenami, and Outrage Beyond. See also this previous report and the SPI.
Needless to say this has been very discouraging for the primary victim and disruptive to the affected articles and discussions. I suggest blocking the above IPs and semi-protecting the articles, and, unfortunately, their talk pages. I'm heading out so I won't be able to give this the attention it deserves. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I recommend re-protecting Tales of Moonlight and Rain and its talk page per this threat to resume their behavior there "sooner or later".--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another one, 123.224.162.194 (talk · contribs · count), that reverted my removal of some OR on the article jigai.[18] The existence of a dynamic IP following me around Wikipedia makes it very difficult to edit, since I can't monitor which pages they are reverting me on. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And another one: 123.225.11.135 (talk · contribs · count). This one didn't follow me, but did vote in a JoshuSasori-esque fashion on an RM. I have also noted that the nominator there, Mysterious Island (talk · contribs · count), also appeared immediately after JoshuSasori got blocked and has since made over 1,000 edits, all of them the same type of edits JoshuSasori made (RMs, removing macrons, etc.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These IPs aren't exactly dynamic as there's a clear range he's operating within. A couple of well constructed range blocks might eliminate the problem for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock has now reverted my removal of inaccurate fringe material from jigai three times[19][20][21], and I can't revert them again for a while without violating 3RR. How much longer to I have to put up with this?? elvenscout742 (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protect that article as well. I've gone back and undone that edit, apologies if anything decent in there got nuked as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think Mysterious Island is JoshuSasori. The edit summaries follow a different style.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-reporting

I have been accused of WP:BLUDGEON at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Brandon Brown. One of the recommendations for being accused of such an offense is to "ask an uninvolved administrator their opinion" and a link is provided here. Naturally, if my actions are disruptive to the process I want to correct them. Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - first and foremost, thank you for self reporting this here. My initial comments are that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a policy... all the same it is an essay that makes sense in many respects. However in this case I think it is fair of you to say that there may be some difference in interpration of how people should be applying WP:VICTIM. I am not commenting on which interpretation is correct, as both sides have merit (yes, this article is about the crime, but the article starts with what is essentially the BIO of the victim). I don't think I would have said that you were bludgeoning the discussion myself, but I would suggest that now that another editor has mentioned it to you that it may be better to take the WP:VICTIM discussion out and put it at a higher level {{comment}}, perhaps above the !votes to explain your view on how/if that policy applies, rather than replying to each !voter who uses that link in their argument.  7  05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's an extent to which participants at AFD are more sensitive to WP:BLUDGEON, given AFD is provided as the primary example of where bludgeoning might occur. Generally speaking, though, responding to every comment that states a position contrary to your own will be seen as "bludgeoning". From what I can see, you have been the first responder to every delete !vote there (except for the last couple after WP:BLUDGEON was pointed out). Has your activity there breached the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON? Sure, maybe. Is it a hanging offence? No, not really (at least I hope not; I'm sure I've been guilty of it a few times!). It's just seen as generally not collegial. I see you've not been tempted to respond to the last few comments - probably best. And  7 's advice above is good. As you noted there, the essay says "it is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question". No need to respond to every one. Stalwart111 08:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Questioning every vote that is contrary to yours is also considered to be badgering. Make your policy -based point the first time, and AGF that all goes nicely --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On a totally and utterly unrelated note, could somebody trout Barada (talk · contribs) for having an image in his signature, violating the guideline in WP:SIG#Images Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't trout him, but I approached him as any editor could/should have (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Chowkatsun/Beatles MoS sock

Pretty sure it's him again. For context see this SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an indef block in place for a few minutes. I have no idea where it went. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Aoclery on Ajativada

Regarding User:Aoclery, there is a long list of incidents:

• Personal attacks:

diff diff diff warning diff diff diff diff diff

• WP:OWN:

diff diff diff diff warning diff

• Avoiding reaching concensus:

diff diff

• Not providing reliable sources c.q. removal of maintenance-templates:

diff warning diff diff diff warning #2 diff

• Original research:

diff

• Vandalism:

warning diff warning #2

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathon was harrassing me by continually editing the ajativada page he was put up to this by his fellow non djualist john le kay...and he doesn't understand the concept either .How can you edit something you cannot grasp...that is why i exposed it on my facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed this editor but with a message, as you will see from the diff, that this can be immediately lifted if he is willing to desist from personal attacks and from claiming ownership of pages. I didn't feel inclined to go for escalating blocks as this kind of attitude either needs to change (in which case the block can be lifted instantly) or if this doesn't happen, be permanently prevented. I'll be happy for another admin to review this block and make it time-limited if they feel this is better, and/or to lift it if an effective appeal is made. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This guy's made too many attacks, and been too unconstructive to be worth unbanning any time soon. Good call on the indef. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Leave it indef definately: [22] & [23]. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Borderline Legal threat.

I have a strong concern with the account User:Katiefisher because she is part of Public Relations for the subject of Bill Browder. I had my suspicions that she was editing as the IP in what appears to be a whitewash attempt at this page so I did a simple google search and found [[24]]. Not sure this raises to the level of a blocking concern so I'm bringing it here for advice and opinions.

• [[25]] is a good example of the POV pushing.
• I reverted the change that was put on the page (original and neutral title was Criminal Charges of Tax Evasion (simply a fact not leading arguments one way or another), the change was made to "Persecution by the Russian legal system" (purely a non nuetral heading)[[26]]
• I did this to make it a more neutral tone as well [[27]]
• Youtube is not a [[ reliable source and when it's a statement by the person invovled can not be used [[28]]
• And this was a purely grammatical edit [[29]] while also removing what appears to be a WP:SYNTHESIS.

The claim has been made is that these are defamatory and libelous changes[[30]]. These are serious claims that should be examined by the community at large to determine the course forward to the benefit of everyone involved. Thank you, unless specifically asked I do not have anything further to say here regarding this issue as I would prefer a consensus be reached and my opinions in this matter are sufficiently stated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see where this is going, but perhaps if someone explained to her NLT then this might be a non issue? Of course a block for NLT would prevent the NPOV violations, but the end doesn't justify the means.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to state here, a block may not be the answer I think that the main concern here is that we indeed have a neutral article and some eyes more experienced then mine would sure help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify the editor of this ANI. I took the liberty of doing so myself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• [[31]] Lol I informed it just got screwed up...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to notify yourself on a regular basis (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arg. I can never see your name and not think "Bilbo" now....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I was supposed to consider being called "Bilbo" an insult. But hey, the road goes ever on and on... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My cat is called Bilbo... so I don't see how that's supposed to be an insult either... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because it sounds like dildo?--v/r - TP 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the purpose of that instrument, why again would that be an insult? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The criminal charges section is IMHO a little too long compared to the rest of the article - could it not be reduced to a couple of shorter paras? Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we don't need a blow-by-blow account.--ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of an EW

Sorry for this maybe "strange" report but looking for Brunodam's puppet I can assure there's a sufficient background. Here you can find a potential edit-war and before starting a revert-war I'd ask a mediation from some keen sysop. From my experience I know (per above) that the other position (the use of *only* modern names instead of historical ones or the mix of both which is my favourite solution) seems to be irreducible, that's why I'm skipping talkpage asking for administrative intervention directly. Though I think it's time for a TB for DIREKTOR, please take a look at what is happening to the page. Please note even the name of Fiume's historical State has been turned into an anachronistic free State of Rijeka before my intervention: honestly I have not enough time to find how many vandalisms such as this are in our pages, but I'm scared of the high potential number of them --Vituzzu (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Using my Sherlock Holmes-esque deductive skills to piece together the completely omitted context here:

1. "Brunodam's puppet" refers to Brunodam (talk · contribs), who apparently still socks here (although it's not immediately obvious what similarity is being made to Brunodam's edits here).
2. "Fiume" and "Rijeka" are the Italian and Croatian names respectively for a town which has belonged to both, and the diff shows DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) changing the former to the latter under the rationale that "Rijeka" is the English name for the settlement (presumably regardless of historical period).
3. Vituzzu considers this "vandalisms" and is requesting an unspecified topic ban on DIREKTOR, along with other unspecified administrative action.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of en.wiki's sysops have a deep knowledge of this kind of "affair" and they are the main target of my request which doesn't contain any specific request for administrative actions in order to avoid any kind of influence

I bet your Sherlock Holmes-eqsue got lazy while investigating ;p

--Vituzzu (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. An ANI thread. Doesn't this belong on the talkpage? Mind you, I've not been properly informed of the report, as WP:AN (where I have been directed) is empty of any threads on this. Up 'til now I assumed Vituzzu's thread was simply scrapped, being aware AN is not the appropriate venue.

• If you direct your attention to the "Place names" subsection of the relevant article you will notice a long-standing disclaimer (not of my devising) that explains the article uses contemporary English-language names. This is not out of any "national interest", its because it would be highly confusing to use two toponyms interchangeably in different paragraphs for a whole host of towns and regions. The names preferred are the most common terms in English-language usage, complemented, of course, with a one-time mention of the relevant Italian-language name (as per WP:NCGN). Its just that some Italian users hanging around such articles find it, shall we say, "distasteful" not to use Italian-language terms there for foreign lands claimed by Italy.
• As I explain in my edit summary, the user is correct in reverting the "Free State of Rijeka". "Free State of Fiume" is the English-language name, and I did not restore the mistake. Either Vituzzu did not read my edit summary, or its a deliberate straw man.
• I have no idea why Brunodam was mentioned.. If the user is actually suggesting I am his sock, I'd like to point out I was among the folks who originally reported him for socking all those years back; and he's hardly the one to be removing Italian-language terms (quite the opposite). One explanation might be that Vituzzu is, in fact, Brunodam's sock...? I don't know.

There you have it. -- Director (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, Vituzzu is a WMF Steward. While not impossible, it makes him an unlikely sock candidate. Vituzzu, I think you've fallen prey to a difference in IT vs EN policies. I just don't see a single revert as ANI worthy. Did I miss something?--v/r - TP 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, accusing me of being Brunodam's sock is even more ridiculous. Like I said, I have no idea why he's mentioned. -- Director (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An intercessory poem

"My friend, you would not say with such high zest
to children who'd write history so tricky,
the New Lie: Dulce et Decorum est
Pro Patria Wiki."

"It is good and proper to edit-war for one's country." DS (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AKA quis custodiet custodes?... Who will edit-war the edit-warriors?! Basket _Feudalist 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other edit-warriors? :) -- Director (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Anon 64.183.48.206's refusal to discuss adding excess to film plot summary

For several days, anon 64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added superfluous details to the plot summary of Lolita (1962 film), which already has more than 850 words (and that's after I trimmed it). WP:FILMPLOT clearly states "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." I have tried discussing with this anon on his talk page, but he refuses to respond. I tried to compromise with the anon by leaving part of his edit and trimming other parts of the plot summary; his only response was to restore his edits in their entirety. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining the information at WP:FILMPLOT. I asked the anon to discuss on the talk page and stop edit warring. His only response was to restore all of his edits. I have given him warnings about edit warring. During all of this, the anon has never made one comment in an edit summary, on the article's talk page, or on his talk page. In addition to my reverts, another editor also has reverted his edits. I am not asking for sanctions necessarily, but I hope an admin or someone can convince this anon to please discuss, wait for other opinions, and follow the usual procedures of WP:BRD. I have notified him about this discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like they've probably violated WP:3RR. Might be best to take it to the appropriate noticeboard after giving them the standard warning. Doniago (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no technical 3RR violation, and my experience generally is that slow-motion edit warring by an anon does not result in action at the 3RR notice board. I'm more concerned with his unwillingness to discuss. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This anon appears to be the same editor as 69.231.39.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both have made similar disruptive edits. 64.183.48.206 recently came off a one week block for IP hopping to make disruptive edits. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is still edit warring even though they didn't violate the 3RR, which is blockable. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future reference you might want to take things like this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some films where the plot is complex enough that a little excess verbiage is required to give a good accounting of it, but Lolita is not one of the them, the story is fairly straight-forward. IP should be blocked for edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a pretty clear waring on the users talk page. If there is anymore edit warring the user should be blocked immediately. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even I've reverted a no. of edits by this IP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

The IP did respond at its talk page, at 00:53, 15 February 2013: "It's very important that the Ping Pong game that is played in the film, be mentioned before the piano playing. Also the word "Let" really should be the word "Rent" TO "Let" is the wrong form of word that is used." 69.95.203.11 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Both IPs look like potential Bambifan socks to me. There are a couple common targets that pop up in both of their contribs (not naming them here) that are tells. Are there any admins/editors who have more experience with Bambifan who could take a look? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted 69.231.45.122 and blocked 64.183.48.206. I don't want to assume just yet that those are the same though I suppose there is no basis for my assumption besides ridiculous good faith and the clock, which tells me I need to be doing other things. I encourage further digging. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IP has now hopped to 69.231.45.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cresix (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies blocked the 69...122 IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP editor removing inter-wiki links

Can someone take a look at 109.48.79.85's contributions? He is removing interwiki links for what seems to be a dubious reason, but I cannot be certain of that. Someone with more knowledge of such things should take a look. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking too deep, with the release of Wikipedia:Wikidata, interlanguage links on en.wikipedia are redundant, unless they aren't already on Wikidata. Not sure if that's the issue here, but just wanted to make sure that was spoken :) gwickwire^talk_edits 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the editor's improving the project here. The only concern would be if he's removing them from pages that don't contain a link to edit the links in the side bar. Handy Mandy in Oz is an example of one where the links shouldn't be removed. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I am glad I came here, because none of what you guys are saying is at all familiar to me. My question now is whether I should revert my reversions of his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change much on the page, but if I were you I'd self revert. Just in case the IP didn't make sure, check to see that the interlanguage links aren't removed from the sidebar afterwards (or check beforehand by seeing if the edit link exists under the interlanguage links). More information on the interlanguage links can be seen at WP:VPP#Are interlanguage links unnecessary now?, that page also says that it's best not to remove the links all at once, but rather to remove them from an article when you are editing it anyways. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The key thing to check is that all interwiki links are now on Wikidata. To check this, enter the title of the article in question into the search box at http://www.wikidata.org and go to the article's Wikidata page. There you see all interwiki links known to Wikidata. In simple cases (all articles are precisely equivalent), you can simply add any missing interwiki links. (Typically these are interwiki links added since December.) I don't know what to do in more complicated cases. Hans Adler 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Paavo273 Complaints

Nothing of substance here likely to lead to admin action, except perhaps a boomerang. OP warned by MBisanz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Complaint: Abuse of administrative position by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page & request for relief. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page 1. Complainant User:Paavo273 (C-Pvo) requests AdminFutPerf's self-described "unusual" special findings and editorial content rulings, especially of "consensus of sources"--all made under color of administrative authority[b ] constituting gross, prejudicial, reversible error--be rolled back; that AdminFutPerf’s subsequent dictating the terms of discussion [c ] in Talk:Continuation War in violation of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy be noted as a violation or stricken; that ordinary WP dispute resolution process be allowed to run its course; and, finally, that AdminFutPerf be blocked from further rulings on Finno-Soviet and Baltic issues, as AdminFutPerf has shown clear bias in favor of the Sovietist perspective, (Why is there a WP article for Russophobia but not Finnophobia?), while expressing disdain for or ignoring the conventional Western view, which is clearly represented in the Continuation War article alongside the Finnish and Sovietist perspectives. Another reasonable possibility is that AdminFutPerf merely repeated false allegations of others and did not even read the article. 2. C-Pvo respectfully requests to know: Is there a prior connection between AdminFutPerf and User:Paul Siebert and/or between AdminFutPerf and User:YMB29? 3. C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo [c ] (bottom half of new diff. paragraph) which appears to establish a new, low standard for WP research and to send a message to a particular user that a Google keyword search any eight-year-old can perform is that new standard. Real research, C-Pvo humbly suggests, is based on possessing and understanding the entire scholarly source or a substantial part of it enough to have understood and analyzed the reasoned basis for what you are citing. The CW article, C-Pvo asserts, for the most part reflects serious scholarly research (as far as can be determined at present) whereas the lists of sources cited in the talk page, especially the list by YMB29 [z] like the original citation for the “Soviet victory” result [u] are only bits and pieces. 4. If the disinterested WP administrative community should find AdminFutPerf's "unusual" editorial content rulings authorized by WP administrative procedure, C-Pvo respectfully requests in the alternative, firstly, that AdminFutPerf specifically OUT these alleged supporting sources and that thence a full impartial hearing be conducted by the disinterested admin. community within the framework of the sourced CW article content that has been hashed out over time, rather than merely simplistic count-up-my-sources treatment now endorsed by AdminFutPerf. (In this case, about half the mini-cites, i.e., “Finnish surrender” are unsupportable given the undisputed facts in the article. [y] The remaining mini-cites from the Google search stating Soviet Victory refer to a contention covered in depth in the article, [x] , [w] , [e] , etcetera.) 5. C-Pvo argues (and has argued), e.g., [ee], [ff] , that the infobox is not a proper area for separate research, especially when a body of vetted, well-established sources exists in the article. Complainant would especially appreciate an administrative ruling on this particular issue. 6. Finally, C-Pvo, the complainant, alternately avers, in direct response to AdminFutPerf's "unusual" special findings and rulings, that when taken as a whole, contrary to Admin. FutPer’s snap rulings, the CW article does not depict a Soviet victory as against Finland, unless at most a very narrowly qualified one. Soviet treatment of very many other, nearby countries as discussed in subsection “Buffer Zones” [j], (even as filtered through the Soviet perspective) and Assessment [e] are especially telling of the entire lack of any unqualified Soviet victory when placed in context. (See also, especially, introduction [f] and background [g] as well as [h] and Motives… [i] ). The article does not allege unqualified Soviet victory. 7. No Consensus on what victory even meant: Many reputable sources (See also Winter War) cited in the CW article (including [e] ), state the USSR had like intentions for Finland as for the many other whole countries whose entire “absorption” or enforced communist puppet-government installation the USSR “required” as buffer zones. [j], As such, the very meaning of victory is not settled, and therefore in the humble opinion of the complainant, unqualified victory objectively cannot stand as a result. The infobox template guideline [r] specifies the result as optional and allows, “In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used.” Complainant respectfully requests admins and other discussion-participants identify any personal connection or bias regarding the subject matter. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for injunction, rollback and blocking from Finn-Soviet and Baltic articles of User:Paul Siebert 1. I, Complainant User:Paavo273 (Pvo) request revert/rollback for User:Paul Siebert’s edits to the Winter War article [z] and others, whereby Paul Siebert, apparently taking heart from AdminFutPerf’s self-described “unusual” ruling (alleged in separate complaint above to be gross error), has been changing other wars’ infobox results (on the basis that the rules allow no other choice) with no discussion whatsoever on the relevant wars’ talk pages, e.g., see Talk:Winter War. I further request a block against Paul Siebert from editing privileges for all Finno-Soviet wars, battles, and related issues, as he has shown a clear contempt, bordering on anti-Finnishness, for the mainstream Finnish and non-Marxist Western positions. 2. Paul Siebert complained and threatened me for changing and declining to self-revert an infobox result to the Continuation War, even though my change had followed discussion among other parties at Talk:Continuation War on the exact subject. 3. It is my contention that Paul Siebert’s discussion in Talk:Continuation War and subsequent edits misrepresent the infobox result parameters; it amounts to forcing a cookie-cutter approach on the infobox that was never intended. See template [a] (“result optional”) and discussion [b] In addition, User:YMB29 cites a lack of consensus among the infobox developers [c], which if still current, makes it only a nonbinding guideline altogether. In either case the infobox parameters clearly state result as optional. 4. Despite all this, Paul Siebert, taking license, in part from AdminFutPerf’s decision (“[W]e can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf.”) [d] (bottom of diff), which I am seeking to have set aside in a separate complaint above, still insists, "[I]f you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk (sic) with the standards.” [e] 5. Another point of complaint: Why is Paul Siebert quoting in Talk:Continuation War a long reference [g] (bottom of diff), in any event contradicted by the article, about the Winter War? These are two discrete conflicts, whose main common thread is Finland trying to preserve its existence. (See Winter War and separately Continuation War.) 6. Paul Siebert has noted the “we” Wikipaedians guideline and admonished others to focus on content and not personalities [f] but has himself been willing to use ad hominem attacks [g]; practically in the same breath as promoting "our" Wikipedia, alleges to know as prevaricating darkness another user's heart, ("Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to (sic) the word "victory" in the infobox before.")[h], never mind that "limited victory" is all this other user has ever argued for,[1], [2], [3], etcetera, in fact long before Paul Siebert entered the discussion.; and has shown a general unwillingness to see another side. Such rigid inflexibility and hyper-adherence to perceived WP procedures, assuming good faith by Paul Siebert, appear to evince an overt hostility to those who would disagree with him, and possible personal issues with Finnishness as a whole. Paul Siebert appears to not be satisfied that the Sovietist side is well represented in the article. 6. Finally, while it’s not important that English WP users' English be perfect or even good, it should be coherent. The English of Paul Siebert is normally excellent, but I would propose a change to the following (I thought at first he was talking about a political party) [h], perhaps something like, "Anticipating possible accusations of bias (He anticipated aptly), I would inform pro-Finnish users that I intend (or am intending) to fix such errors in other articles too." Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for Reversal of Warning issued to User:Paavo273 as abuse of administrative discretion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Paavo273 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise I respectfully request that the warning issued to me for “disrupting” by AdminFutPerf be rescinded. I contend that AdminFutPerf's and User:Paul Siebert's actions described in this and my other complaints demonstrate either Finnophobia or naked promotion by illicit means of their own political bias. I humbly allege that acting either coincidentally [aa ] or in concert users AdminFutPerf and Paul Siebert (See separate complaints) have themselves disrupted the talk page and short-circuited the established WP:dispute resolution process. I incorporate by reference my two above complaints, one against AdminFutPerf and the other against Paul Siebert, as grounds to rescind the warning. Additionally, I humbly contend that the warning issued by AdminFutPerf, later declared to be based on “walls of text,” “extraneous material,” and “filibustering” is false and a bald attempt to silence views opposed to his own. At this hyperlink is my longest copy: [bb ] and there were a couple other shorter ones also exactly on point, where YMB29 was complaining to his mediator in a related case about the Continuation War talk page and another where YMB29 and another user were arguing about the same exact infobox result. (Now that I know how to use hyperlinks, I realize it would be simpler and shorter to provide one of those for each of the diffs on the other pages, but there was absolutely no mass copying or filibuster, an outrageous and as to my alleged malicious intent, also libelous accusation. The entire CW talk page immediately prior to AdminFutPerf’s cleanup, including the my alleged misdeeds can be seen if you scroll down from this diff.: [rr ], and I request impartial, disinterested administrative review. As to the defamatory claim of filibustering, a review of the relevant talk page diff [rr ], will reveal, on the contrary, that despite a fusillade of false rules violation accusations directed at me from user YMB29 and later Paul Siebert, I whenever possible assumed good faith and tried to steer the discussion back to content, just e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. On his user page AdminFutPerf boasts, “This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level," and he links to an “article” ( [ss] ridiculing, mocking people who disagree with his rulings. Complainant Pvo would submit that if this decision by AdminFutPerf and the subject of the other complain against him are indicative of his body of actions as a whole, there are good grounds to complain of rogue administrative abuse. If he wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch or Katherine Graham or even a mini-Murdoch, he should start his own media empire rather than commandeering Wikipedia. I do not believe the Libertarian über-genius internet innovator from the American South state of Alabama had this in mind when he created the people’s encyclopaedia, not either a fawning Sovietized infobox version of history that contradicts article sources, nor a short-circuiting of dispute resolution processes (See my separate complaints.) I wonder how many other users have become victim to preemptive scorn and ridicule from this administrator pushing his own agenda. I have no history of administrative sanctions, and a general caution to the group against edit-warring would have in my opinion been appropriate. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I hope you are kidding, yes? The Banner talk 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Being that this user posted three consecutive threads here (which I had to divide into subsections), calling for the relief of adminship of a respected sysop and the block of another user; I don't think this report will be taken very seriously at all. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) tl;dr much? Anyone wish to summarize? Just from what I can see (not looking at diffs), Paavo is over-exaggerating quite a bit... gwickwiretalkedits 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Plus, when you realize that there wasn't anything really bad done by any of the two complained about, it's only a content dispute. gwickwiretalkedits 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I stopped reading when I got to this: "C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo". I would humbly request that you format your complaint in concise, plain English. It would make it much easier on the admins here, many of whom have limited time and are not fast readers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Not just any content dispute... This has been through mediation twice, one which I presided over at MedCab, and another one at MedCom. I think it's probably in need of administrative intervention of some sort, but I'm not sure exactly what that should be as I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I have warned him at User_talk:Paavo273#Warning. MBisanz talk 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC) With your background, you could at least give some credit for the hilarious nature of the format :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My quick skim of the above chose "As to the defamatory claim of filibustering..." as the highlight. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the dispute might like to check if any topic bans should be recommended (has it gone that far?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if this is a regular tactic for Paavo, it is definitely disruptive per WP: WALLOFTEXT and WP: MWOT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)My quick skim of the above gave me a headache and thoughts of storms of boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) This has already been rejected by Arbcom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic image change request - red head

Hello all,

I am unsure on the exact rules and regulations surrounding image selection for wiki topics, but I bring to you my humble request.

I have a photo here of my friend 'Mat' http://fitboost.co.uk/images/red_head.jpg

You will notice he is pretty much the very definition of 'red head'. Would it be possible to change the current photo of a grimacing woman with red(ish) hair for this picture of my friend?

Yours faithfully

Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.70.158 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;

Hi Oliver! Thanks for the offer. It looks to me like a good example.

• Do you own the rights to the image? (Basically meaning, "did you take it yourself"?)
• If you do, does your friend agree with you using it?
  

Probably the best path would be to start by uploading the picture to the Wikimedia Commons. (The link will explain what that Wikimedia Commons is about.)

The next step would be to discuss on the "talk page" of Red hair whether the picture should be used in the article.

If it's agreed that it should be used in the article, then you can put in a link to where the image on the Wikimedia Commons, and the picture will be included in the article.

That's just one way to go about things, and there may be better ways. For questions like these, the best place to ask is at the Wikipedia Help desk. I've been on Wikipedia a while and I ask questions there quite often.

Hope this helps! Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: And (since if I don't mention some very vaguely-related literary or artsy what-not, people will think my account has been compromised) I also suggest that you read the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Siddal.

• Per WP:HOTTIE, I prefer the current image at that article. Tarc (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't make get me Shakespearean on your ass, Tarc.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuscar

• Tuscar is a relatively new editor, and his sole edits so far have been related to the Lambretta SX 200 article.[32] These have consisted of adding a non-reliable link in, first to the external links section, then into the article itself - which has been reverted by Mr.choppers and Biker Biker in addition to myself. He's been warned by all 3 of us about the link, but the major issue is his personal attacks and attempt at ownership of the article, accusing Biker Biker of censorship[33], and, to myself, been incredibly rude (in the process, attacking Biker Biker and Mr.choppers as well).[34]. Can someone have a word with him please? I don't want to get involved in this guy's tirades any further. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Biker Biker posted a WP:NPA warning, I'll wait to see what Tuscar's response is. (I was too tired last night to really think about things further) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Censorship by archiving

The discussion at Talk:Jesus has been archived twice while ongoing. In both cases, the pattern has been that those doing the archiving insist that others are disruptive merely for expressing their views. In neither case was the thread started by those accused of "disruption." Rather, we gave our opinion. Then we were accused of disrupting, for responding to what others had said. Then the discussion was archived, always less than 24 hours after the last comment, and always with the archivers giving themselves the last word. It is outright censorship.

In the most recent case, I was in the middle of typing a response to comments directed at me, when the entire thread was archived. I consider it censorship, because what is considered disruptive is the mere expression of certain opinions, such as that there is a problem with the sourcing and claims made for historical existence of Jesus.

Current dispute: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, History2007. The former accused me of vandalism on my Talk page--for what? Humanpublic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous time this happened, I was warned for 3RR. I read the guidelines, which define 3RR as involving edits that undo someone's else's work. Exactly how is it somebody's "work" to archive a thread (that is active)? It seems to me that archiving an active discussion is actually an undoing of the conversants' work. Humanpublic (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment User Humanpublic is a highly disruptive user who has been actively disrupting the talk page of Jesus for months. Almost all of his comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM as he challenges the facts in the article, supported by several academic sources, and all he has to show is his own personal opinion. He has been told time and time again to present his own sources, yet never cared to do so. He has also continued to ignore all comments about the talk page not being a forum. His accusation that he was censored is ridiculous, as he has been given tons of occasions and time to present his arguments using sources. He has never taken that opportunity, and there was no indication whatsoever that he was about to do so.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is a thinking editor who challenges the conservative status quo. Jeppiz is a highly disruptive user who takes completely innocent editors who also happen to disagree with him to ANI, wasting everyone else's time in the process, and suffering no consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x3) see multiple warnings by various users on OP's talkpage, dating back to December last year; beating this horse almost SPA-like since September, and rationale for closing the section in question (permalink). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He also deleted my comment: [[35]] and then accused me of vandalism. Yes, those who disagree with me, give a lot of "warnings." Warnings for responding to what they say to me. Humanpublic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your responses are good material for a blog or op-ed pieces; feel free to write those. It's not what wikipedia is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My response was a direct answer to the question posed to me by History2007. He asked for a source about a claim I made, and I gave him the source and the quote. As for "disrupting for months", not counting the Talk page comment you deleted, I've made 3 comments on the Talk page in the last month. Humanpublic (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts or if you really this that that is what happened. The facts of the matter is that after you returning for the umpteenth time repeating your own personal opinions, you were reminded about WP:NOTAFORUM and urged to present sources. You decided to ignore all that, and just went on and on about your what you believe, as you've done so often before. Seb_az86556, who had not been involved in the discussion, then stepped in an archived the most irrelevant parts that clearly violated WP:NOTAFORUM, clearly stating that further violations would be treated as vandalism. You ignored that, you deleted his archiving - and you went to posting your own personal opinion over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NOTAFORUM are NOT vandalism in the wikipedia sense. They may be disruptive, (and in this case they certainly are,) but they can not be treated as vandalism. Sperril (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Okay, I get it - everyone's pissed. Jesus is one of those articles that will bring out incredible POVs all round, and anyone editing it needs to have a very thick skin to survive. That's just the way it is. Is anyone reverting anyone's edits or deleting stuff in the article? If yes, there are available channels such as WP:3RR. If no, simple thing would be to ignore until sources turn up. I can't hand on heart see any vandalism here - bring us some diffs of talk comments being changed, refactored or blanked, then we might have something to go on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave it to you. My comment was deleted : [36]. My comment gave a source. Then he attacked me for a lack of sources and told me to go write a blog. He archived an active discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Seb_az86556 is an admin. Maybe I should quit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Learn to read. I'm not. And why would that matter, anyways? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have any of you tried going to dispute resolution on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a content-dispute. It's a behavior issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, WP:DRN is for content disputes. If Humanpublic had presented sources when first encouraged to so (or the second, third or perhaps twentyfifth time), there might have been something to discuss at DRN. When a user spends month after month just repeating his personal opinion, which is at odds with what every academic in the field says, I don't see a content dispute. There are several content disputes at Jesus, but this isn't one of them.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing at odds with what "every academic in the field" says (what field is that, anyway? history? hardly any of the sources are classical historians. they are theologists). I said most of the sources are Christian, which is a fact. I said the lack of secular historian sources matters--my editorial opinion about sourcing, not about the subject itself. I said there is no contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Jesus, which is sourced to the sources already in the article. Then I gave the actual source and link, and it was deleted.

I'm going to restore my deleted comment from Talk. I'd like the deleter warned for vandalism. Humanpublic (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has butted heads with Seb in the past, let me make it explicitly clear that this is not 'vandalism' in the Wikipedia sense. It may be many other things, but vandalism is intentional defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Despite that it seems like a dick move to you, you cannot demonstrate that Seb did it to harm the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you supply us with diffs of where you've discussed this before? Sorry, but I think everyone here has got carried away, shot their mouths off, and just needs to just calm down and take a deep breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is getting carried away except for the OP. OP must launch a diligent search for sources that are relevant, then come back and make his case. That's how it works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are also getting carried away. Do not delete edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Vandalism has a very specific definition on wikipedia. This isn't it. That being said, Humanpublic is simply not getting it. This has been going on for far too long. Admin action needs to be taken. Sperril (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Herein ANI commenters go off the ANI track and get into content discussion better held at Talk:Jesus NE Ent 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's hard for me to want to sanction Humanpublic, because he's fundamentally right. The article should be treating Christian and Islamic sources as biased: it would be extremely remarkable for a Christian or Islamic historian to objectively examine the facts and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is a fictional character, as he is a central figure in both religions. It would be far more enlightening to find out what atheists, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to say on the topic, because they don't possess an inherent desire to affirm his existence. Instead, the editors of the article refuse to examine the sources for bias and take into account the simple fact that most people that publish papers on the existence of Jesus are people that undertook the question with the forgone conclusion that not only did he exist, but he is either the son of or a prophet of an all-powerful being that created the universe. Only in religious articles do we tolerate this kind of bias. I don't know how to fix it, but it would be better to figure out how to fix the article than to figure out how to shut down Humanpublic.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) While I am sensitive to your concerns, we have an entire article on the subject already. The talk page of that article would be a great place to have the discussions that Humanpublic wants to have. I can't think of a single good reason that this needs to be discussed on the main Jesus page except that Humanpublic knows it will cause the absolute maximum disruption there. (Is Humanpublic even aware of the existence of that page?) Sperril (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Because the lead of the article contains the problematic statement that the majority of historians believe the evidence supports his existence, perhaps? That would seem like a reasonable motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I think this is diverging into a content discussion now. I will not try to prolong it, but given that Kww's main tenet is the exclusion of scholars based on their religious beliefs, I would just point out in passing that based on his reasoning, Jewish scholars would also need to be mostly excluded given that a number of references in Talmudic sources are interpreted as having references to Jesus and rejecting him as divine. So that reasoning would exclude Christian and Jewish scholars. And of course Buddhist scholars hardly write on the topic (given the need to be able to read sources in Koine Greek) so the only permitted scholars would have been agnostics and atheists. And as it happens Ehrman (the first source used) is an agnostic, and Price (the 2nd source used) is an atheist. But again, this is a divergent issue here, the sources were discussed on RSN and the recommendation there was that they are WP:RS, and that is the general scholarly consensus. RSN was the natural venue for that discussion rather than ANI and the issue has been discussed there several times, with the same conclusion, as user:DGG mentioned there.History2007 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Jews are less biased than Christians on the existence of Christ. Saying Rabbis are reliable sources for the existence of Moses would pose analagous problems. Is there a policy on archiving? I don't see anything disruptive in the discussion, and have seen no credible explanation of why an ongoing discussion should be archived against someone's will. Isn't the official way to get a disruptive editor dealt with to bring it here, rather than trying to cram an archiving down his/her throat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) May be so, and Jewish scholars are in fact highly respected in the field. Yet not a single Jewish scholar who denies existence has been presented. Yesterday, I specifically asked for a single historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem be named as an opposing source and none was offered. But again, this is a content discussion now. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, Christians are even more biased, since Jews don't conser Moses the son of a god and current salvation. Minorview (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree with History2007 above. Humanpublic had repeated the lie that Jesus's existence only comes from Christian sources for months, and Kww (probably in good faith) repeats the same lie above. It's quite simply not correct, there are several non-Christian scholars who argue exactly the same thing. Even if we took out every Christian scholar, the topic at hand (did Jesus exist) would not change. So not only are the posts above about Christians being biased utterly irrelevant to ANI, they are also irrelevant to the discussion about Jesus's existence. However, that is a content discussion. What matters is that since September 2012, Humanpublic has been repeating the same argument over and over again, never with any source. It's that's not disruptive, I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) Oh, grow up and try to understand what others are saying. Even if not practising Christians, the scholars being used as sources are (almost?) entirely from Christian cultures. It's a systemically biased sample. Wikipedia has to take a global view, avoiding a cultural bias. It's not a lie to argue that. Allegations of lying are personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) That's a significant charge against a whole field. Is this your opinion or do you have a source, written by a historian immersed in the relevant primary sources, to support this contention? Frankly, even if the field is biased and no authoritative sources address this there's nothing to be done as there's no solution that we can offer. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The Jews are biased-vs-Christians are biased line of discussion needs to stop. Like right now. Discuss the sources all you want, but if the accusations of bias against entire faiths continues there will be blocks issued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. This is a content discussion that should be on an article talk page. I do not think the situation warrants a ban or block on Humanpublic as of now. But the point is that the discussion really belongs on the Christ myth theory page, given that he is repeating John Remsburg's arguments, which are discussed on that page. I suggest we stop this content discussion and just continue spending this lovely time on the myth theory talk page, not here. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The contention is more like "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own religion", Beeblebrox. Certainly not a statement that should lead to threats of blocking.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Could you clarify that wording please Kww? Do you mean to say "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own beliefs" or just religion? History2007 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) We don't accept the ancient "sacred" texts as reliable sources. We cannot automatically accept the views of adherents as objective. So, rather than trying to silence Humanpublic, how about showing some interest in his concern about the archiving of active discussions? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Of course WP:Primary supports your statement. However, Kww's point (which goes beyond ancient sources) is a general point that needs clarification, now that it has been stated. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It's not for Wikipedians to determine themselves if an entire discipline is biased due to the beliefs of its scholarly practitioners (or for any other reason). Such issues are pertinent to an article, with regard to due weight, only if reliable authoritative sources (which in this instance must mean authors who have studied the primary sources in depth) have made statements on the issue. Articles here should reflect the scholarly consensus (or major conflicting views within a field, or better yet, the state of the field). They can't offer original, unsupported, or insufficiently supported interpretations of the field. Thus, if the beliefs of scholars within the field is an issue this has probably been addressed within the field itself, or minimally, by reputable scholars in related disciplines.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Excuse me??? Exactly why would I be blocked for the opinion that Christians are biased about the existence of Jesus? Why don't we cite a bunch Hindu scholars and state as fact that the world was created by Brahma? Do reputable scholars disagree on whether the world was created in 7 days? If you give equal weight to Christian theologians, then yes they do. I sure hope Wikipedia does NOT give equal weight to Christians on that matter, and does not claim it is a matter of dispute whether the world was created in a week. Take your threats of blocks and shiove off. Minorview (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Precisely my view. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The question of the existence of an historical figure called "Jesus" is not equivalent to offering proof for the existence of god/a god. It's a historical question, answered in the realms of probability, on the basis of available evidence. The article must reflect the conclusions of the field. If you have the presumption that the field is biased as a whole in its general conclusions then you need reliable sources to make that point for you. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Religious scholars are not authoritative sources on the creation of the world; they are authorities on religious beliefs about the creation of the world. It's not a question here of their religious beliefs but of where their proper and recognised expertise lies. This is a historical question, not a metaphysical one, addressed by historians. Their beliefs are central to the discussion only if reliable sources – that is ones with historical expertise who have consulted the available evidence and have the competence to do so – have made it so.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It is also often a question of opposing sources, e.g. in global warming there are two groups of professors who debate the issues. Multiple requests have been made for a list of opposing scholars on the talk page, and have to date been met with general silence. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If sources are not produced (which should be a trivial task) there's no argument to be had and editors who behave in this way, are in my opinion, detrimental to content production (which is the primary goal here, no?). Dissension in a field is not unusual as most scholarly fields are organised around points of real scholarly contention. Establishing the weight of various viewpoints in a field, unless very marginal, is often a problem and solutions naturally veer close to original research. You really need expertise to address these issues (i.e. map the field adequately).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Please see the talk page. Multiple requests have been made for a "single opposing professor" and none has been produced. There is no debate at all about the shortage (or indeed lack of) of opposing sources. The discussions produced are "arguments from first principles" not about sources. History2007 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) HiLo48 has been blocked before for what were, in my opinion, reasons lacking almost entirely in merit and where he was largely correct on content issues. Without prejudice to their contributions elsewhere, character assassination, or derision of their point of view, I would ban both HiLo48 and Humanpublic from that article and talk page in a heartbeat. Their talk page contributions are not forwarding content production and are made without regard to the sources. There's simply no way they should have anything to do with writing this encyclopedic article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually I would personally not support suddenly tarring and feathering these users without proper warning, at this point. HiLo has been far less argumentative, and had in fact left the discussion when the current brouhaha started; and he was totally upfront that he knew there are no opposing sources. And HiLo is not a WP:SPA by any measure. I think he was just probably expressing his frustration with the way the world works. So a mild reminder to him is all that may be needed. Humanpublic is, however, a WP:SPA with no other apparent focus or contribution. I would support a warning to Humanpublic to read WP:V, WP:Forum and WP:HEAR for real and only discuss things when he has exact sources that support his position. History2007 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The more I look at WP the more ban-happy I become – which is probably why I wouldn't make a decent admin. Yet, I think there is an argument for a more liberal use of relatively short, non-stigmatising topic bans in a range of non-productive content disputes. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) And blocking/topic banning, becomes a viable option, in my opinion, when an editor's contributions to an article or article talk page are detrimental to decent content production. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC) This is easy Atheist sources, and sources of non-Christian religions, cannot be used, they are biased. Ohh, do not forget that the world is flat. Sources that argue otherwise are biased because they believe the world in round. Also, sources about Earth and Universe must be removed because they have a conflict of interest being as they are on Earth and in the Universe. We can go in circles all day long, but it comes down to this: present a source that demonstrates that Christian scholars have a bias. Anything other than that is WP:FORUM and a pointless discussion since it will never be included in the article until we have a source. It's as simple as that. Why are we arguing? 2/3 if the world's population are not Christians, finding a source to support the opposing viewpoint should not be hard.--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. History2007 (talk) Wikipedia does not automatically accept as fact news about North Korean from that country's own official news agency. We almost certainly don't need a source to tell us to make this decision. We do it because it's common sense. Similarly here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Really? Demonstrate it. Where has it occurred that a North Korean source was plainly wrong, there were no opposing sources, and we ignored that source anyway? You can't, we use sources that oppose those viewpoints; which there are plenty of.--v/r - TP 00:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) If the N. Koreans say that they are manufacturing all the iPads that Apple sells, and no US news agency, nor Apple Computer itself disputes that, is that news rejected? But this is again, most probably not an ANI issue. But this type of issue has been discussed on RS related ages a few times, and the example that I recall was that if a professor writes: "most scholars agree that the global warming debate is over" there will be serious protests from the opposing side, unless the opposing side has already conceded the debate and there is no scholar left to oppose the statement. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) But there are reams of sources that contextualise and interpret offical North Korean government statements for their underlying meaning, treat their official pronouncements as unreliable, and make statements of the same determination. Are there equivalent, knowledgeable, authoritative sources that treat this field in a similar way? Do you in fact think that the scholarship in this field is of equivalent authority to and has a analogous position with regard to evidence of that of the North Korean government? Has anyone credibly characterised the field in this way? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Actually HiLo has readily accepted that there are no opposing sources, from the star. His complaint is about the world at large, it seems. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic at hand

Threads on Talk:Jesus will be archived 3 days after the last comment by Miszabot. If editor(s) don't like or find Humanpublic's et. al. arguments unconvincing, I highly recommend they ignore them. If editor(s) feel specific editors are being disruptive they should first politely address the matter on user, not article, talk. If editors truly feel additional steps must be taken, they could bring them here -- but I encourage anyone contemplating such action to have their ducks in a row and bring diffs not rhetoric. Slapping archive tags on conversations with pointy comments about editors is not a good move, not actually supported by written policy, and is itself disruptive. NE Ent 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring user comments may work at times. But there have been cases in Wikipedia where some users have relied on silence amounts to consent arguments when they have been ignored. So quite ironically this goes back to the no opposing sources issue, and the silence of Apple Computer about news reports that all iPads are manufactured in N. Korea, just discussed above. But I would prefer to sign off from this discussion now, before it takes up the rest of my life... History2007 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at Humanpublic's contributions, I see no evidence whatsoever of disruption to the Jesus article. His replies have generally been polite and courteous, unlike some of the editors who've disagreed with him. The case of him going to 3RR has a very strong sense of "go ahead, punk, make my day" from those who filed it. Therefore I utterly endorse Ent's comments above that if you don't like Humanpublic's opinions on talk, and if you think he sounds like a broken record, but is not damaging the article, to simply ignore him. I appreciate patience has been tested, but losing your rag over it will never work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But the accusation here was the primarily problem with Humanpublic's comments have been they are forum or blog like comments i.e. have nothing to do with improving the article. In that case, I don't see how 'silence amounts to consent' comes in to it or matters. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Ent, although I would be less soft: moves like this one are highly disruptive, plain and simple. Humanpublic is free to express opinions and concerns in the talk page, especially if supported by sources, even if they are minority views, and noone is allowed of misleadingly marking them as vandalism. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this be considered a legal threat?

It looks like one to me, in the edit summary.[37] (For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership.) I warned the editor User talk:70.22.150.151. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Upper Crust Pizzeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:70.22.150.151 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please keep an eye on Upper Crust Pizzeria. The IP editor listed above removed about 5k from the article with the note: "For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership." Diff[38]. GabrielF (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is absolutely a legal threat. IP blocked. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They took out valid, sourced information calling it libelous (which it was not). A NLT block is in order here. The fact that their company may have made some mistakes doesn't mean they can just erase it from the internet. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a new set of IPs are involved now. I just blocked 24.221.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for edit warring. 24.221.237.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also active currently. I have done a little fact-checking to make sure that the IPs didn't have a point; however, I found that the claims in the article are backed up by sources. I don't think I'm sitting too close to the situation to do it, but more apparent-socks come in to join the situation, I'm going to protect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with the situation from living in the area. The IP editor says: "The Upper Crust LLC filed for bankruptcy, but the brand did not. You continue to include libelous material that is factually incorrect. The brand never filed for Chapter 11, and is under new ownership"[39]. I am looking at a Boston Globe article from January 8 that says: "Upper Crust filed for bankruptcy protection in October with at least $3.4 million in debts, and about $1.6 million in claims have been filed by government agencies for unpaid meals taxes, along with back wages and damages owed to workers." I don't quite understand what the IP is saying. I'm not certain how a brand can file for bankruptcy. A new company, UC Acquisitions bought the leases to four restaurants. According to the Globe that company has some ties to founder Jordan Tobins but Tobins and UC Acquisitions claim it is not Tobins money that is being used. We should probably change the owner listed in the infobox. Even if there was some merit to what the IP is saying about bankruptcy, that does not explain the other deletions, related to labor issues, that are well-sourced. GabrielF (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, brands don't file for bankruptcy protection, companies do. It is the job of the bankruptcy trustee to reorganise the entity which can involve selling off its assets, including its brands. It would appear that in this case the brand was sold to a new owner. Why yes, IAAL, how did you guess?--ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP notified of this discussion.[40] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a two-year-old claim by anonymous employees that the operation is being investigated by customs and immigration. It was not confirmed by the agency and denied by the target, the claim has not been repeated by the Globe subsequently and article reporting the allegation has been removed from the Boston Globe website.

Also, could someone please check the source supporting this?

In early 2012, further allegations of criminality surfaced, as Jordan Tobins was placed on leave after using company funds for personal expenses.

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

(I've used up my free monthly quota). I looked at the article earlier and mentally noted that "criminality" seemed a bit over the top. Also, they're eight months old, and they're allegations of criminality - not charges, not convictions - is this OK per our biographies of living persons policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the last query about BLP concerns to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Upper Crust Pizzeria, since that's the more appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from the article: "Marcus’s about-face comes in the middle of a fierce battle for control of the gourmet pizza empire between Tobins and co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan Higgins. The pair recently sued Tobins, accusing him of charging the company more than $750,000 in personal expenses, including the purchase of a plane, and placed the founder on administrative leave in March." GabrielF (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User: Ysfan redux; rangeblock likely needed

User: Ysfan, who was brought to AN/I not long ago , and indeffed by User: Bwilkins for some very nasty personal attacks. He has begun socking as User:MegaMind75, and was subsequently blocked by User: Qwyrxian. He has stated that that he has an intention to continue socking and making personal attacks (here), and thus, I believe a rangeblock is warranted. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 04:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As the target of one of the personal attacks, I think it's just better to WP:DENY oxygen to this fire. Lets not make a bad situation worse.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't through down rangeblocks in cases like this. I don't even think that most of our WP:LTA users get rangeblocks. Besides, the user is probably right in that rangeblocks would effect too many good users in the process. If a checkuser wants to investigate, they can do so, but I think the easier solution is just to block and reblock. The user is primarily interested in a single topic, so blocking socks as they come up should be simple. Even if they get another interest, the editing style is clear enough that we'll still spot them eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably one of the most unfortunate blocks overall. Had a bad day, went ape-shit over another editor, and is now persona non grata. This really didn't have to get to this point, and really doesn't have to end this way. I left Ysfan an exact way forward last week, but apparently community behaviour is not in his nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to pull out the area of denial weapon and just RBI them. Feeding him isn't going to make it any better now. They've joined the dark side so if he's not willing to help himself, then there's nothing for him here. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

English Patriot Man states that he is a banned editor

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.

---

English Patriot Man (talk · contribs) has said (at Talk:Adolf Hitler "I was banned before for editing stuff many don't like and labeled "anti-Semitic" for example saying Karl Marx was a Jew not an ethnic German, which is nothing but the truth" - another editor believes that he is a sock and linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeordieWikiEditor/Archive. Anyone familiar with this? If someone states they are a banned editor I'd say that's reason enough to block. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could be referring to User:WitsBlomstein (sock User:Nikasheoo made this edit). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A conviction should not rely on a confession alone, of course Basket _Feudalist 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia ain't a justice system, so...(kinda academic, though, i think there's enough behavioral evidence anyway. We'll see what happens at the SPI.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nirajdoshi is very likely another sock of the same user. None of them seems to be banned though, just indeffed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I could see English Patriot Man being a GeordieWikiEditor sock. Can't see any plausible connection between English Patriot Man and Nirajdoshi, though. also, isn't SPI that way? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, also: indefblocked because duh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're a happy family.

Well spoken. All block reasons should be so concise. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

This was my most-favorite-ever couldn't-be-more-concise-or-any-more-accurate unblock request response, hands down. Zad68 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fucking weirdest thing. I was just checking the history of the homophobia article on a completely unrelated matter, and I saw that name in the history with the strikethrough showing it's blocked (thanked to whatever script), and checked out the talk page to see what had happened... it's like when you hear a word for the first time, and then hear it everywhere you go. Sorry to go so wildly off-topic. Just had to say that. :P — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well confusing blocks and bans is a fairly common mistake. Also, I seem to recall one sockmaster who constantly pushes the POV that being Jewish is mutually exclusive with holding any other ethnicity, but I can't remember a name. Anyone know who I'm talking about? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do! But, unfortunately, I can't remember the name either. I'm not sure why I replied, really. – Richard BB 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Y'all are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Talk:Germans and User:Guitar hero on the roof/User:Danton's Jacobin. I thought that too, at first, but looking at the contribs, GWE seems likely. I've started an SPI, so we'll see what happens. maybe I'm just slow today, but I can't tell whether Bish is being facetious... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You may think of Bishzilla as facetious, if you like. You'd do so at your own risk, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumour has it that the real reason that Finnish children's Heavy Metal band Hevisaurus split up was not a contract dispute with their record label, but that they were all seeking to win the affections of Teh Bishzilla and argued over who was going to send the biggest bunch of Valentine's Day roses.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more old school: [41]/[42].Volunteer Marek 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, GuitarHeroOnTheRoof, whose name has been clumsily dropped in this thread, with whom I have corresponded off-wiki, is Israeli. I really doubt that he's gonna pull the name "English Patriot Man" from the sky. There is a simplistic Kumbaya group of editors provoking needless conflict by insisting upon a single article on the members of the German nation-state and the members of the German ethnic-group and then putting Karl Marx's portrait right in the middle of the montage. Power wiki politics in the content department... But, hey, that's an editing conflict at root, not a matter for AN/i (though eventually a matter for ArbCom). Still, the stupid aspersions about the opinions of this or that editor about the relationship between ethnic Jews and ethnic Germans needs to cease. If you've got sock puppet cases to be made, this isn't the place. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (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.

Shankysupercool

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

 – Reblocked. — Coren ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Shankysupercool (talk · contribs) was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation on 11 February 2013. The investigation alleged that the user was using four sockpuppet accounts to spam links to youthungama.org, a blog on Indian entertainment. All four admins participating in the investigation (Qwyrxian, Hu12, DeltaQuad, and Mailer diablo) endorsed the allegations, so the first two admins listed blocked the five accounts. Shankysupercool submitted an unblock request and within a few hours was unblocked by King of Hearts, who doubted the allegations of spamming and said that there was insufficient documentation for the sockpuppetry.

As Shankysupercool is resuming his attempts to add links to youthungama.org, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved admins could review the evidence and confirm whether Shankysupercool really was operating the sockpuppets. If so, he should be reblocked. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As the sockpuppets were confirmed by two separate checkusers, a reblock is probably called for, documentation notwithstanding. —Rutebega (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably. I thought I'd raise the matter here, though, in order to prevent a wheel war. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reblocked the sockmaster; this was clearly a {{checkuser}} block but was not marked as such so no harm done by King of Hearts, who couldn't have known. — Coren ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And on a similar note "Shankysupercool" is the owner and registrant of the website being sock spammed...--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2013 (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 deliberate introduction of known false information into a BLP by Dervorguilla, continued after warning

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.

---

Dervorguilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has thrice deliberately and knowingly introduced false information into Aaron Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in order to deceive editors into !voting for its deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwartz (2nd nomination).

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

There is no doubt that this was done knowingly and intentionally, The editor has admitted it, as well as their motivation, here. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User Yworo’s allegation that User Dervorguilla introduced false information is denied. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about knowingly false, but I could go for careless. Even the most cursory looking on IMDB suggests that two different Aaron Schwartzes are being conflated here, not to mention that the younger Schwartz was sixteen when he was supposedly playing a forensic pathologist in Suspect, which is pretty implausible. Dervorguilla, you need to lay off this campaign. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd have gone for that the first time. But the third or fourth time? After different editors pointed out the issue repeatedly? I've blocked Dervorguilla for 24hrs - hopefully enough time for them to go and read what sources there are a bit better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it; good block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (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.

Boberta13531

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.

---

Reporting this racist comment. Appears to be a vandalism account. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked by materialscientist; could an admin please revdel the edit, please? NE Ent 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2013 (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.

NPOV not being complied with; and unfair treatment of IP address user

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,

Regarding the page Murder of Travis Alexander; the page states "murder" as a fact despite an ongoing trial that is trying to determine the circumstances surrounding the death. The accused admits killing the victim but maintains it was self defence. Since manslaughter is a probable outcome of the case; it is not NPOV to state "murder" as a fact at this time.

On the talk page we have been discussing this matter and the general consensus was up in the air but more were in favour of "death of..." than "murder of...". However, one user BabbaQ disagrees and has constantly been unable to support his position with any arguments besides saying that it should remain as "murder of.." because of a previous consensus.

He then contacted an Admin requesting that the page be semi-protected due to "IP addresses editing against consensus". The admin protected the page and I feel that this is unfair as it is just because I do not have a user account, as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism by other ip addresses. The protection was wholly against me. I cannot see how having "murder of.." stated as a fact, and then going on to say that Jodi did kill him (which she admits doing) doesn't lead to the reader making the obvious conclusion that she murdered him. But this is not yet a fact as the trial is ongoing and Jodi maintains a position of self defence. Surely this is even a violation of "Biography of living person."

Anyway, I don't see why BabbaQ's position is favoured just because he has an account.

Thanks, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your concerns appear to have been addressed with the move of the article to Killing of Travis Alexander. dci | TALK 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• In all honesty, I think the unregistered editor has a point. The name he has suggested (arguments about how best to title the article precipitated the dispute) is likely more NPOV than either "murder" or "killing"; that said, both editors involved in the dispute could be told to cool things down. dci | TALK 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Killing of.. Is a good compromise. Even though I am of the opinion that heavy POV-pushing should not be encouraged. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, it probably works for the time being. dci | TALK 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I was trying to explain to the IP we should wait until the verdict and then we will know for sure. I am personally quite sure that a Murder of.. move will be made at that time. But until then Killing of.. is a good compromise.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, "killing of.." is much more accurate terminology. Thanks for your swift resolution, much appreciated! 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: of course BabbaQ it may very well be the outcome of the case, but we shouldn't write the article presuming a particular outcome and stating it as current fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just stop it now IP. It is over. And frankly I am not interested in your POV-pushing game. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of POV-pushing. You got the page protected to support your view and now that it has been rectified seem bitter. I was not POV-pushing, just didn't want a misleading title and you were equally determined of having "murder of.." remain despite consensus. Thankfully it has been resolved now, so please stop the personal attacks and lets move on. Have a good day, Yours 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Killing is clearly the move NPOV term. And IP's do get the short end of the stick around here. NE Ent 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But my point has always been that Death of.. is not the correct title either. Anyway problem solved. i personally think that when the verdict come a move to Murder of.. will most likely be made so Killing of is a great compromise until then. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd think "Death of..." would be better when the accused is not saying "I did it, but it was self-defense". Since he admits there was killing, that title should be suitably neutral, even after the conviction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Again BabbaQ, although I agree you are probably right about the eventual outcome of the case, your prediction shouldn't mean the current article should contain information that is not currently true. Jodi still maintains self-defence.

• Also, can I make a request to have the page unprotected now? As I am still unable to edit. Thanks Admins, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the conflict about the name has been resolved and the article moved, to general agreement, I have unprotected. If there's any edit-warring, I'll reprotect. (Or perhaps you will, dear reader, as I will shortly be asleep.) Bishonen | talk 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

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

Edit filter gone awry, or just normal vandalism?

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.

---

Any opinion on Noahrolfe (talk · contribs)'s recent edits? Was he pasting in the blanking message himself, or was an edit filter triggering and messing up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any way this edit filter could've behaved this way. I am highly inclined to believe the user copypasted the system message presented to him, as the text is the same. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just copy/pasting the system message. Looks like clear vandalism to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have assumed copy-and-pasting as well, if the 2nd and 3rd messages hadn't been tagged as "blanking". That's why I was confused. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok -- clicking through the "Tag" link showed me that is used if a substantial part of the article is blanked. That makes sense now. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2013 (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.

Voortle

There's a herd of absurd redirects. Is it reasonable to nuke all the untouched ones? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Timestamps from 20:38, February 10, 2013 through 05:12, February 13, 2013 with the exception of South American English, which was further redirected by another user. The other ones which don't show (top) were redirected by a bot, as he chose a redirect to redirect the page to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agreed ... and nuked for ya (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando's wholesale removal of sources

User: Thargor Orlando has been systematically removing Media Matters of America [43] as a source from a wide variety of articles using the edit summary "updating ref". In some cases he/she has attempted to "replace" the Media Matters URL with the same news content such as this edit where he/she linked to a local newspaper's pay wall web page. In other cases the removal of the Media Matters content left a malformed and incomplete ref such as this edit. Looking at Thargor's contrib list I count 35+ removals of Media Matters as a source just over the past 3-4 days. I think that Thargor is a good editor and has undertaken this activity in a good faith effort to improve the project and he/she has shown a willingness to discuss their work on his/her talk page here and here. But I don't think the discussion is going anywhere despite three editors expressing their concerns about his/her edits in regard to Media Matters. For myself I know in the past that the wholesale removal of a controversial source can sometimes be seen by the community as disruptive and I'd like for the community to discuss this behavior here and give Thargor some guidance on how to proceed so that he/she does not inadvertently get themselves into trouble hundreds of edits later. So to summarize, this is discussion is not about the validity of Media Matters as a source (that would be RSN or the article talk page) but rather a behavior that results in the wholesale removal of a controversial source, without discussion, in a way that is covert and often degrades the current citation and hence the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider this a completely accurate positioning of what's happening, but there is no "wholesale removal of sources" in most cases, but a replacement of partisan sources with more neutral ones; the only exception has been in some instances where the MMfA link is a functional duplicate source (i.e., MMfA cites one article or program, and that article or program is already cited). With few exceptions, it has been very uncontroversial, and in the areas that it has been questioned discussion is ongoing and is, in fact, going somewhere. My intention has been to cover other partisan sources as well, my edits are admittedly bold with the knowledge that not every change needs to be discussed, after all. and well within content, sourcing, and verifability guidelines. My intention is to move to other sources as I finish with this one (WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Truthout, etc.), and I welcome any questions that come along at the relevant talk pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

the edits look a bit tame to me? the second edit is simply citing the show of the person the quote was attributed, thus removing an unnecessary layer. nothing from the media matters article was even in the edit cited, just the quote. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I do a lot of citation work, especially with {{Dead link}} citations. I also strive for neutrality, & often finding myself restoring links for sources with which I heartily disagree. I find it objectionable when I think an editor appears to be removing a citation with a particular point of view & replacing it with a citation that has an opposite point of view, when a more appropriate & unbiased action would have been to discuss the change or add the second citation to supplement the first one.

Initial case in point

I became concerned whtn I found a replacement of the citation supporting the statement "The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports have been questioned by partisans on both sides of the historical debate over the events of 1893." in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom section of the Liliuokalani article. The citation for the Media Matters for America (MMfA) article was replaced with the very Rush Limbaugh piece that it criticized. Thus the effect was to swap out liberal source for a conservative one.

The Rush Limbaugh piece contained inaccuracies at odds with even a basic knowledge about the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Rush Limbaugh only presented his point of view, & no citation. On the other hand, the MMfA article provided these reliable citations:

• A link to the audio of the Rush Limbaugh segment in question.
• A Wall Street Journal op-ed
• 2005 Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
• 1993 Apology Resolution
• State of Hawaii information about Queen Liliuokalani
• A historical document, the Blount report
• A " A PBS report about 180 Marines that landed during the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani

After I restored the citation & put the Rush Limbaugh citation into {{cite web}} format, I left a message on Thargor Orland's talk page. We continued the discussion at Talk:Liliuokalani#Restored MMfA citation in Liliuokalani: Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Thargor Orlando called the MMfA source "pretty blatantly partisan resource"; however I strongly believe that replacing a well-documented, liberal "pretty blatantly partisan resource" with a conservative "pretty blatantly partisan resource" that is at odds with historical fact is not a improvement & has the effect of subverting the purpose of the original citation.

Nine consecutive edits on 16 February 2013

I examined nine edits in which Thargor Orlando replaced (or removed) MMfA citations. I only examined the original source & the source that replaced it. I put my findings in Possible POV violations regarding replacement of MediaMatters citations, & Thargor Orlando posted a response on the same page. I must stress that the Replaced w/substantially different viewpoint column represents my own opinion; the other columns are strictly factual.

The replacement citations are either from conservative sources in which the gist is opposite of the original citation, or more mainstream sources that the original Media Matters citation was criticizing. In some cases, the replacement was no link or a dead link. In one case the Media Matters citation was simply removed.

Again, this has the effect of subverting the purpose of the original citations. Additionally, the common edit summary. "updating ref", inadequately describes the edit & gives the appearance of covertness. Lastly, the quality of the citations were degraded, particularly when the original was removed, replaced with a citation without a URL, or replaced with a citation whose source is behind a paywall, or the citation no longer supports the article statement as well as the MMfA source did.

Why I think this is a _bad_ idea

Wikipedia:Be bold has a caveat: ...but_please_be_careful.

The admonition "but please be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus – which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first.

In a discussion at User_talk:Thargor_Orlando#Hi_there, Thargor Orlando pointed to comments s/he made at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 39#Thomas Sowell. In the same discussion thread, but further down, I found Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 39#Reiterating the_consensus, which states:

* Acceptable Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptable. (emphasis added) Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando's actions in the wholesale, methodical replacement of MMfA citations give the appearance of censorship of MMfA. It may be that Thargor Orlando feels that this is improving these articles by ridding them of "pretty blatantly partisan resource". But this does not adhere to the consensus that "... inclusion of MMfA is acceptable". The edits are certainly not being done on a case-by-case basis, as there are times when the inclusion of MMfA is clearly appropriate to a section of some of these articles.

Possible solutions

1. This is exactly the situation for which Template:Discuss & Template:Better source was created. Thargor Orlando should use these as the first recourse.
2. Stop replacing MMfA with the source that MMfA criticizes. It give a strong appearance of removing a liberal POV & replacing it with a conservative POV. Find objective & unbiased sources instead.
3. Using "updating ref" as a summary is misleading & therefore unacceptable. Summaries should at least note when a replacement is occurring & list the reason(s) why.
4. If it is germane to the article, hold your nose & leave it be. Hey, I am neither a royalist, nor a conservative, nor a sympathizer with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. But as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, I have restored many {{dead link}} citations with those points of view, because they are relevant to the article I am editing. A little impartiality goes a long way here.

Peaceray (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by mail to comment on this. My own interaction with Thargor Orlando ended up more or less okay; my objections were to some sloppiness with which the MMfA cite replacements were being done, not to the general idea of replacing them. Most MMfA cites in WP can indeed be replaced with underlying mainstream news sources that the MMfA piece is referring to, and articles will be the better for this. MMfA cites can obviously be kept if it's MMfA's opinion itself that this being cited. I think MMfA cites can also be kept if they function well as a survey piece. For example, if the WP article says "In March 2005 there was a flurry of reports that Politician X had kicked his dog from one end of his yard to the other" and it's cited to an MMfA piece that quotes or links to seven different newspaper stories, I don't have a problem with that. It's kind of a compact collective reference (of course you could string a series of seven cites to replace that as well). As to cases like the Limbaugh one above, I would try to avoid ever getting into it in the first place. Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a journalist or a scholar, and he regularly says things that are partly or fully untrue, with a goal of pleasing his fans and annoying everyone else. If there's a historical debate about the role the U.S. played in some event, I wouldn't bother citing either Limbaugh or criticisms of Limbaugh. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:GB guidance

I've been away for quite a while and am a little rusty with the tools. What are our current WP:GB guidelines? Does anyone think one might be warranted here? The global contributions are not encouraging at all. TIA, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromised user account used for vandalism?

I've just encountered this subtle piece of vandalism (since reverted) by a user called If5tatement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, that user name shouldn't be active; it's the former name of Glorioski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Glorioski has also been inactive since last August. Could this be a compromised account? I'm not sure how to proceed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that Glorioski has been inactive since August, I would venture to guess that the user probably forgot his login info for that account and logged into his old account instead. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be blocked, but I'm not convinced the account's compromised. Rutebega (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the funniest vandalism that I've ever seen. But obviously it was wrong. Terribly, terribly wrong. I'd warn the user and ignore it unless he repeats the offense. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Internet is serious business!  ;-) TCO (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The account wasn't compromised. I did it, I was just livening up a dull day.Glorioski (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

History merge request

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

---

This is a simple request for an admin to merge the history of two articles, a new one in mainspace and an old one that was userfied: Jerry Harvey (inventor) and User:Binksternet/Harvey.

Afterward, please delete User:Binksternet/Harvey.

Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (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.

2013 meat adulteration scandal

Could somebody please have a look here? It is starting to look very close to edit warring. And the Talk Page has become quite muddled. Maybe some kind of temporary article protection is called for ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Talk Page is now beginning to resemble a war of slogans. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for now protecting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactored from close statement The page has now been semi-protected for a couple of weeks by Ruslik0. -- Dianna (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The typical useless measure ANI produces. The actual problems were caused by a registered editor. The edit war between that guy and Martinevans123 continues in fact [44] [45]. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

True that. Recommend an admin full protect wrong version. NE Ent 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So, my one revert at that page is now "the edit war", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your oblique points above seem to describe his editing e.g., this gem: "In Britain, if you put meat in a pan, maybe with a little oil or fat, it gives off lots of water when heated, and cannot be fried." That people like that are allowed to make tons of edits on Wikipedia only speaks to the value of registered editors... 5.12.84.153 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

At last, we have found a use for ANI. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Juniorjackjlc

Most recent in a long series of obvious single-purpose accounts which immediately (and only) edit Susan L. Burke has made an apparent legal threat:

• "I will be asking Wikipedia's brick-and-mortar legal department if they approve of the way you've slandered and harassed your fellow editors." diff.

I had opened SPI (somehow missing the previous report due to a typo I guess) just before this comment was made but didn't have a chance to inform them about it. Yworo (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a clear intent to cause a chilling effect and a NLT violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Blatant legal threat. He says it's his last edit here. Suggest he be held to that promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I came across the edits at the Burke article, and though suspicious, wasn't fully aware of the quacking history. Thanks for following up. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP on talk page

Can someone comment on this diff[46] and see if it rises to the level of BLP? Calling the actions of a person "morally corrupt" is a serious accusation. I apologize in advance for not posting this to BLPN, but I don't know how to do that for a talk page violation that has no associated article.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is generally best to ask a ArbCom clerk to remove BLP violations from ArbCom pages, especially when you are regularly involved in disputes with the other party and when your own edits have been labelled BLP violations as well.[47] -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any of my edits that have been labeled as BLP, but I will take your advice and ask a clerk to look. Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done [48]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot

Resolved

 – Being discussed on operator's talk page. Rockfang (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Addbot should be stopped and its recent edits reverted, see my three sections of today on User_talk:Addshore. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading the timestamps, Addbot (talk · contribs) hasn't made any edits for more than two hours, and in particular not since your first problem report less than an hour ago, so a block may not be urgently indicated, and we might be able to give the bot operator a little time to respond. In the meantime, I realise you might be feeling frustrated by seeing automated changes that you disagree with, but you shouldn't be communicating here on Wikipedia with messages like your first one: "Please let me know what you plan to do about this, or I will have to report your bot." It's not collegial, and doesn't make the bot operator more likely to respond positively. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that if the bot hasn't made any more edits like the ones I mentioned on his talkpage, and will not do so till those issues are properly addresses, then a block is not necessary.

The collegiality of my message is definitely higher than the comments I have received upon occasion on this very noticeboard, so let's not go there. In any case, I just meant to make clear that I consider the issues serious ones, and expect them to be addressed before returning to the order of the day. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know if the space addition is in favour or in contrary to AWB bots? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge AWB doesn't do this in automated edits. I am an AWB user, but not the most experienced one. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the edits and questions you have raised on my talk page. I think bringing this to ANI may have been slightly excessive as the bot had indeed stopped editing after one issue was reported earlier today. I welcome everyone else to discuss all of the points raised on my talk page on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to close this thread at this time, since the editor indeed addresses the issue on his talkpage. Which is not to say I agree with him, but there is fair discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967

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 not at all happy about doing this, but I feel it's necessary to report more continuing uncivil behavior by Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who just came off a 48-hour block earlier today. Please see this thread on admin Madman's talk page and take note not only of Canoe's inappropriate thread title, but also his ongoing rude and threatening comments towards Madman, who was nothing but nice to him. I feel that Canoe's refusal, or inability, to understand why his behavior is so disruptive will only guarantee that it will continue to happen. Every time he is out of line with another editor, he claims to believe that his actions are justified because he's "right" about the particular content issue. He just doesn't seem to get it at all that the problems he's been having with other editors have absolutely nothing to do with content issues, and everything to do with his poor behavior. What makes this so sad is that I considered Canoe a wikifriend and I went out of my way yesterday to help him during his block. Please read this thread from his talk page and I think it'll give you a great idea of why I'm so concerned that he's just totally missing the point of why he's had so many problems with other editors. But though his anger, I saw the good that he's done for Wikipedia and, without him knowing it, I wrote to the admin that blocked him and had this discussion with him. In my last comment to Canoe on his talk page yesterday, I suggested that he consider taking a wikibreak or possibly even retiring because I'm so concerned that his bad temper would not be good for his health or well being, or for this project. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have stuck up for Canoe as he does do good work for the project and is helpful on BLPN, but frankly, if he wants the bot fixed he should roll up his sleeves and help fix it. Madman has gone beyond the call of duty, since he's volunteering to do this. I think most people, on receipt of an apology regarding a false positive, will take it in the intended spirit. Alternatively, we could shut off ClueBotNG until its false positive rate is thoroughly tested to be 0, while vandalism skyrockets. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. While I'm sure the bot issue is important (I know nothing about bots haha), I'm more concerned with the way Canoe treats others. Especially when it's completely unprovoked, as in this case. On the help desk thread that triggered this situation, Canoe said, "The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher."[49] This really needs to stop. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion from 3 days ago which resulted in a 48 hour block can be found here. GiantSnowman 10:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The commentary by Canoe1967 at User talk:Madman#Your bot sucks the big one! is outrageouos. Also, at WP:Help desk#why has mad bot deleted my article, the commentary is extremely unhelpful ("The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher" diff). Madman's replies are a model that all editors should strive to follow. It is beyond me how someone can handle difficult programming problems while dealing with such obviously misguided ranting (Canoe1967 failed to even provide a clue concerning the problem—that had to be added by another user). I don't know what it would take to prevent similar rants in the future, but assuming the recent discussions regarding the user revealed a substantial problem, my recommendation is an indefinite block. We either support people (like Madman) who are doing valuable work, or we promote disruption in the hope that collaborative behavior might magically awaken in Canoe1967. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• To come from a 48 hour civility block (very lenient in my opinion) and go straight into that shows that Canoe1967 clearly does not have the correct attitude to edit here constructively. There ia a long-established pattern of incivility here, and it does not make for a collaborative project. The irony of their "What part of being civil don't you understand?" comment made me chuckle. I'm edging towards supporting an indef, but if others can provide evidence to the contrary then I am willing to change my mind. GiantSnowman 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As is often parroted, blocks are preventative and since the previous block prevented nothing, there's no reason not to escalate the block duration. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• At first glance, I'm not impressed by the Canoe's actions. However, I would like to see their response either here OR on their talkpage (where I'm certain someone must have tried to resolve this issue before bringing it to ANI) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I can't believe this crap. An editor loses a grandfather, wikipedia deletes the article on him, and then a bot comes along and accuses him of breaking copyright laws. Another editor then gives them a big lecture about COI on a deleted article?. At least re-word the bot message so it makes sense to new editors that may not understand a message the size of a small book on their talk page. "This is an automated message from software named "MadBot" that detects copyright errors. It has noticed that Article Y is very close to Website X. This bot has been known to use legal threats of plagiarism and copyright violation after making mistakes with an article on an editor's recently deceased relative. If this is the case then ignore or remove this message and either vent your frustrations at help desk or leave wikipedia forever."--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• As much sympathy as I have for your loss, it is not Wikipedia's fault, nor any of us editors' fault. Your grandfather, however great he may have been, was not notable enough for Wikipedia, and all we've seen are Wikipedia editors following rules correctly. You cannot blame a bot for doing what it was programmed - correctly - to do. Also, writing a personal attack against a bot is not going to help your cause. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• While I'm glad to see that Canoe has replied, it's sad to see that has reacted in the same way he did to the block he just came off of yesterday - completely refusing to acknowledge any of his bad behavior and instead blaming everyone else. It's the exact same pattern; he justifies his hostile, unprovoked treatment of other editors' by what he alleges are their content or other non-behavior-related mistakes. And just to be clear, we have no information whatsoever that says anyone's grandfather died. The help desk thread that preceded Canoe's angry comments was started by another editor, Thorp12, who said that he created an article for his great grandfather. Although irrelevant to this matter, Thorp never said a word about the man dying or, more to the point, recently dying as Canoe is falsely trying to imply. For all we know, the man could've died decades ago or perhaps is still alive. (I never saw the article, so I don't know.) This false "editor loses a grandfather" reference is simply a distraction from the real issue: Canoe's behavior. This has nothing to do with an editor's anger over his article being deleted, the editor being educated on COI guidelines (which was applicable and proper), or any alleged deficiencies with a bot. Through his entire block the past few days, and during this situation, we have yet to see Canoe even come close to acknowledging or even understanding what he's done wrong. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed. As I said to Canoe on his talk page during his block, "You'll never, ever be able to control the behavior of others. You can only control what you do." In his response, he said, "I beg to differ" and "Wikipedia is a battleground for far too many editors. If the just ones show weakness or walk away then ignorance and arrogance will win out." I said to him, "Civility ≠ weakness, my friend." --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The "grandfather" died in 1911 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I assumed it was many years ago. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Considering he's just come off a two day block, I'd support a week long block for disruptive behavior/incivility. In my experience with him in the past, I've seen some behavior that irked me, but nothing I considered disruptive before. I've also seen good contributions from him, so I don't think escalating to an indef block, as supported by GiantSnowman and Johnuniq above, would be beneficial for the project. Continue with a normal level of escalation to see if we can modify his behavior rather than forcing him out. Ryan Vesey 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• BWilkins, I meant to address your comment initially. Sorry about that; I'll do it now. You inquired about whether there was an attempt to resolve this issue with Canoe before coming here. If you look at the discussion on Madman's talk page, you'll see that after Canoe posted the "Your bot sucks the big one!" heading and then his first comment, Madman said in his reply, "please feel free to keep your feedback more civil in the future". Canoe, even though he was always spoken to in a completely respectful manner, then had to be repeatedly addressed in the thread about his incivility, and was advised to apologize. He didn't stop and he didn't apologize. He even followed-up with this threatening and ironically rude comment to Madman: "Are you going to shut it down until you fix it?...Either shut it down until proven as fixed or I bring it up at ANI and the bureaucrat talk page that approved it. What part of being civil don't you understand?" And it's important to remember that all this happened only hours after Canoe returned from a two-day block for the same type of behavior. The frustrating part about this for me is that I know how passionate Canoe is about editing. But I also see how his bad temper negatively outweighs that passion. He irrationally believes that his mistreatment of others is not only justified, but necessary, in order to maintain the project's integrity, which is why he is unable to see his behavior as inappropriate or harmful. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I do apologize if my actions seem uncivil. I think you are all failng to see my point. Our treatment of new editors and BLP requests is simply atrocious and they should be treated with far more civility than they have been. Recently with Jan Mak and Henry E. Emerson. Mr. Mak requested a correction to an unsourced birthdate in his article. I corrected it assuming that he as a source was better than no source. A friend of Gen. Emerson's was very upset that we falsely claimed that he had died while he is still very much alive. That editor was very upset at his treatment and the project will probably not recieve anymore input from him although he is very qualified to vastly improve articles. I was also accused of writing my own biography with Ed Miracle. This did not bother me in the least and left a message on the accuser's talk page to that effect. That new editor was treated badly in my opinion as well. These are just recent issues and I won't list the numerous others I have come accross in my short time here but I will if requested and put the list in my userspace with a link. I did not claim this one was a recent death but the bot could easily upset a grieving family that copy/pastes material that is copyrighted. I still feel the bot message could be better written and show a little more respect. I am also curious if it is normal procedure to have other editors comment in this section that are not involved with this issue. IMHO that is just vindictave wikistalking because they have lost discussions with me and others after being very rude, ignorant, and arrogant to push their POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor of correcting birth dates. The IP should have been pointed to OTRS and if they can verify who they are the birth date should be changed (I think by policy currently the incorrect information would be removed, but correct information would not be added which is unintelligent). I could, as an IP, state that I'm the son of Johnny Olson and I want his birth date changed. I know nothing about Johnny Olson's birth date, and changing it on my word (I'm not his son) would cause damage to the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey

I agree that Mr. Mak's article was handled badly by myself and others. I decided to wal away from that dispute because it seems to be de-grading into a battle of whose source is best. In the meantime it was suggested that the date be left out until consensus is reached which doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. Mak probably doesn't mind that we are working on sourcing dates and at least the year he claims is in the article now as well as another. I assumed good faith that it is he because the IP only made the one edit to point out the error. I can't see a vandal or prankster having any reason to request such a trivial change. I had a similar issue with John Weaver (artist). A friend that was helping with the article through email notified me that he had passed. I phoned his local paper to see if they had an obit, they weren't aware that he had passed and were thankful that I had informed them. It still took more than a month before they had a source online to use in the article. That issue was handled correctly IMO without upsetting relatives, friends, and editors, etc. Some people do lose out on their requests as was the case when Mitch Gaylord wanted his article edited at the help desk. He was rather upset as well but I think he agrees that the version we have now is acceptable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yet again, Canoe is completely deflecting this issue about his own poor behavior on to other editors and issues. What happened with the Mak, Emerson, and other articles is completely irrelevant to why we are here. It's all a diversion. Canoe still apparently does not get it; that this is a behavior issue and not a content one. However, this admission from Canoe, as Ryan alluded to, is worrisome: "Mr. Mak requested a correction to an unsourced birthdate in his article. I corrected it assuming that he as a source was better than no source." Let's be clear, there was absolutely no evidence that the IP editor was in fact Mak; he simply claimed to be Mak. So Canoe needs to stop repeatedly referring to the anonymous editor as "Mr. Mak". And to the guy claiming to be Mitch Gaylord as Mitch Gaylord. Second, an editor should never change vital content like someone's date of birth in a BLP based solely on someone's word. We make edits based on reliable sources. And, no, an anonymous IP editor is not better than no source. They're equally inadequate. Making Canoe's edit even more perplexing is the fact that he did it shortly after the Emerson issue, in which terribly-sourced birth and death info was added, prompting Canoe to ream out several editors who were involved in the improper editing. In any case, yes, there were editing mistakes made in some articles, but Canoe is doing precisely what I stated previously in this discussion: justifying his mistreatment of others because he feels it is necessary to maintain's this project's integrity. I'm sorry, but his thinking on this is just plain wrong. We can, and must, solve content (and bot) problems without being hostile and threatening to other editors, especially when there's no provocation for it. For the record, both the Mak and Emerson article issues were subsequently resolved through proper discussion, and the editor who objected to the Emerson content actually returned to participate in the article and provide sourced information. Canoe said, "I do apologize if my actions seem uncivil". The reality is that they don't seem uncivil; they are uncivil. I find it surprisingly ironic that Canoe talks about how other editors "should be treated with far more civility than they have been", yet he has consistently done just the opposite. This ongoing "blame everyone else" strategy is a very good indication that this problem is not going to stop. I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this matter is, which is why I haven't made any specific recommendations. I'd rather leave that to editors who are far more experienced than me and can therefore best decide what's most appropriate. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that the bot message could be better written; it has a number of shortcomings that I think are systemic to templated messages on Wikipedia. When Coren was maintaining the code, a couple staffers at the WMF worked with him to A/B test different kinds of warnings (personalizing as much as possible, emphasizing actions, making sure to include a thank you, etc.). Unfortunately CorenSearchBot went offline halfway through the testing, making results inconclusive.

But MadmanBot's still using the same code, testing the different "tones" and adapting the warnings for inexperienced and more experienced contributors. This conversation has reminded me to talk to Maryana and Steven about pursuing further testing if possible and doing the data analysis that will hopefully result in improvements in communication and retention of contributors.

No hard feelings about anything on my talk page last night. These are the sorts of conversations that, regardless of how you got involved as a third party and whatever the tack you may have initially taken, can change the project when pursued constructively. I hope if we do pursue further testing that we will have the benefit of your feedback. Thanks, — madman 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Madman, I was thoroughly impressed by your calm, friendly professionalism in light of how you were being treated last night. The discussion on your talk page was merely the conduit through which the behavior problem (our reason for being here) occurred. Thanks for your hard work on that bot. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well Madman. I would also like to apologize for my un-civil actions. I will be more civil from now on. This has reminded me of a talk we had from our General once. I won't repeat it here, but I did quote him to another editor on my talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really happy to see Canoe's apology and his commitment to being more civil. He also expressed it in a more entertaining way in this discussion on his talk page. Obviously, Wikipedia will always have users who are disruptive in their behavior and editing - intentionally or not - but I think it's important that we never "cross the line" when dealing with them. Even if they clearly deserve it :P I know it's possible because I see so many editors who've been here for many years, without any blocks and relatively few or no warnings. There's almost always a productive way to resolve a content dispute, but if it's not possible then I think it's better to just walk away, at least for awhile. Most importantly, no one can win all their battles. Sometimes, as hard as it may be, you just have to wave the white flag. As I've already stated, I believe that Canoe loves editing, has done a lot of good for Wikipedia, and can be a really fun guy with whom to collaborate. I truly hope he won't allow his short temper to ultimately prevent him from continuing to do these things, to the detriment of his health, happiness, and this project. As I said, I'll leave the resolution of this matter to the veteran editors. I'm fully confident that whatever is decided will be the best course of action. By the way, I have one suggestion: that Canoe stop or significantly reduce his involvement on the help desk. That is where a lot of of the problems have orignated, including most or perhaps all of the ones mentioned above. Have a great week, everyone. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

All anon IP's should be treated with suspicion. State your motives upfront, buster. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Alanon IP's should be treated to dessert. State your motives upfront, Buster. Yworo (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be anything else here, I'm boldly closing this. However, if anyone feels that there is more to be gained from a discussion please feel free to revert. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (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.

58.173.108.6

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

---

This IP address is being used by a user who some of us believe to be a long-known editor called Ali Muratovic per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Muratovic/Archive. He's apparently some sort of a Bosnian nationalist who also has a distinct hate for red links (!) and tends to be generally deletionionist. We've had him blocked him several times in the past, and every time he just comes back and continues unabated. No discussion, no nothing. He makes some amount of useful copyedits, and generally the edits are small and in largely obscure Balkan topics, so it's easy for them to stay under the typical watcher's radar. But the content of the edits is largely useless and should often be reverted as WP:ARBMAC violations, particularly on BLPs. Overall, it makes for a lot of work for everyone else, and there's no particularly obvious reason to expect them to reform. As I asked at SPI in September last year, should we employ harsher measures? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the SPI archive and the contributions of 58.173.108.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it does seem likely that the IP is a sock of Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), That, and the pattern of partially dubious edits (including random removals of potentially useful red links) with no edit summary and no attempt of engaging in any discussion, makes me think that a longterm block or ban might be appropriate, at least until the user begins talking to us. I've at any rate issued an ARBMAC warning.  Sandstein  13:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Obvious block evasion needs to be dealt with. RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The suspected sockpuppet category for Ali Muratovic already includes several IPs from 58.173.*, and the behavior is similar. This IP is just returning after a three-month block that ended February 16, and has already made more than 100 edits, none of them to talk pages. There is no sign of any reform. I'd support a further block of one year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, regarding that SPI - my rationale there is the same as I explained in the case of "Velebit". In that case, splitting contribution history over a bunch of IP addresses over a long period was ultimately shown to be intentionally malicious. In this case I'm not sure if it's being done on purpose, but the end result is still a clear pattern of utter disregard for the normal editorial process. Heck, in this case I'm not even sure the editor has mastered the basic techniques of sockpuppetry. Their confirmed sockpuppets were really low hanging fruit for anyone who speaks the slightest bit of Bosnian - the names follow a trivial pattern. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a year pursuant to this discussion.  Sandstein  09:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Block evasion, edit warring, uncivil and disruptive approach

A Colombian based IP, 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a number of aggressive edits, edit warring with anyone who disagreed with him and with some rather uncivil summaries in his approach with others. He was blocked early today by Kuru for the fourth time. The IP has now hopped to another address—190.208.49.108 (talk · contribs)—and has continued to war, going past WP:3RR earlier and leaving yet another insulting message. It's becoming tedious to try and explain what the MOS is all about and to keep pointing out what WP:CIVIL is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• He's not still edit warring over Cleo Rocos is he? Oh my word. Indef away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Clear cut case - need an admin to block the sock and as Ritchie notes, indefs are called for now. Jusdafax 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I blocked 190.208.49.108 for 72 hours, not much reason to go longer since IPs are disposable. I also semi-protected the page for a month via sockpuppeting (close enough). Left the talk page alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• While my "indef" comment was flippant (IPs rarely get indeffed), the length and determination of the edit warring makes me concerned we'll be back here next month after the protection expires talking about it all over again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is it OK if I agree with the content of the IP's edit? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Same here; I don't really disagree with the content. Methodology is lacking. Kuru (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Certainly. They started off with an insult. But I have restored the edit and explained why on the talk page. One more thing. It takes two to tango, and it doesn't take much more to get an IP blocked by tag teaming and that's what happened here. I won't deny that the IP went about this the wrong way but can we please look at ourselves a bit here also: this was not seemly. Edits should be judged on content, and IPs shouldn't be reverted just because a. they don't have an account and b. they are rude. If we reverted every rude registered editor we'd all need mass rollback. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually the IP had edit warred and been uncivil to a whole host of editors—not so much a tango for two, but a mass dust-up of 9 or 10 outside the club afterwards! Drmies, next time—and with all due respect—come to a consensus with others before you revert, otherwise you are just joining in an edit war and liable to ruffle the feathers of others. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I see your due respect, and raise you a nice and appropriate essay. What I see is a bunch of editors throwing acronyms of policies around, and one IP throwing around insults after becoming exasperated, no doubt. I don't see anything there that address English, the language. Getting consensus on that talk page probably means buying everyone a kitten. For the last time, "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" is not acceptable English, it is not mandated by the MOS, it is not POV. That's the consensus: common sensus. Now, you may go ahead and revert, and get a couple of others to revert as well. I won't be rude, I'll just throw up my hands and say...well, there won't be anything left to say. Or, it is reported in many sources, or at least some sources, a number of which were deemed to have been reliable, that a certain editor was reported to have said that there wasn't anything left to say. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Drmies, I think you need to look into this a little more closely. This is an IP whose first port of call was uncivil language, regardless of whether the edit was right or not. Have a look again at the Irish Pound article: good edit, stupid summary. He's been like that since day 1: although most of his edits have been moving in the right direction, his summaries have not. His insults have not been through exasperation, they are his starting point. I also suggest you look into the hisory of the Rocos article a little more closely. The mention of the press was where it ended up after the previous, gramatically-correct and preferred version ("best known for starring alongside Kenny Everett") was warred over by the IP against the consensus of others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I can't speak for anyone else, but the two "reverts" I did in January were both adding sources and adding content supported by them, and neither was to the version that Drmies just reverted from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Being an entirely involved editor - although having removed the pages in question from my watchlist, I was unaware that it was still ongoing - I can say that only one editor became exasperated, and that was me. The IP editor has not changed their editing style (with regard to summaries) since the word go. They claim to be an experienced editor, yet when challenged avoided or ignored the question, which is, I suppose their priviledge - but doesn't help their position. The question has really moved on from their contributions, and is instead concerned with their conduct - which is why it's ended up here at ANI. Is there any reason why 190.208.49.108 has not been blocked for block evasion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis blocked that IP for 72 hours. See here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

72 hours does seem to make something of a mockery of the initial one month block tho. Not only will they be free to return in a few days (rather than the month their first account is blocked for) they have hardly been given a deterrent to returning to further their abusive and disruptive editing patterns. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts, but a more important consideration is proper language in an article. I only had a quick look, but the IP edit which replaced "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" with "who starred" looked good to me because it fixed the inappropriate language in the article. Was the IP doing anything in other edits that were less constructive? They should have responded more calmly, but perfection is not a requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is talking about perfection? We're talking about an uncivil and disruptive edit warrior only getting a 72 hour block for block evasion on a one-month block leading to their fifth block. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the point that shouldn't get lost: I offered no opinion on the quality of their edits and blocked for their methods, block evasion. That it is the same person is pretty obvious. The talk page is not protected, and perhaps they can use it for a bit, hopefully after waiting at least the 72 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate that the addresses are "disposable" and the editor can hop to another if they wish to, but to have a one month block on one address (for the fourth block) and then only 72 hours on the one they are using to evade the block (the fifth block for an even worse offence than the others) seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely the length of time should at least equate to the others, on the grounds of consistency alone? (Actually there is an argument for a longer ban, as they have compounded their earlier offences by adding block evasion to their list of previous offences). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally only one or the other is done except in the case of block evasion/socking. Any admin is free to revert, modify or remove any action I've done with no hard feelings, they all know that as that is the first thing on my user page. The reason the IP block was so short was simply because it was useless to block for longer, knowing he will just cycle to another IP, and the idea is to not punish the next person who gets that IP and might want to edit. If you look carefully at the type of IP address that is, I probably should have made it even shorter. Keep in mind, my goal isn't justice, it is creating a solution, which I think this addresses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me User:SchroCat was looking for simple consistency. (He's not the one introducing concept of "justice" or "injustice" here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on the IP's side, as far as the comment in question goes. It's my opinion that the formulation he was criticising was well deserving of criticism. I'd be exceedingly annoyed in his shoes. If this kind of thing is at the root of his testiness, I'd support an instant unblock, a shot of morphine and lots of hugs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the reason the IP got blocked. How do you feel about this edit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there an analysis of the whole situation somewhere? The diff just given shows a very reasonable edit, with a bad word in the edit summary. However, the edit summary also clearly states that, in the opinion of the IP, "X is best known for appearing on Y show" should simply be "X appeared on Y show" due to NPOV. The IP's edit could be regarded as pedantic (like demanding a citation for "the sky is blue"), but speaking as someone with no knowledge of X or Y, the IP is extremely correct in their implication that "is best known for" needs a citation. If every edit the IP does is accompanied with profanity, then block away. However, if the profanity comes after mindless reversions of the IP's good edits, a certain amount of latitude should be granted by experienced editors—we are here for the encyclopedia, not a warm glow. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A perusal of the history of Cleo Rocos will be necessary to get the full picture, but as you state, the IP was on point for saying "best known" required a source, to which I added one here. That got reverted, so I added two sources here. That got reverted, at which point I concluded I was starting to edit war, and dropped out. You'll have to ask everyone else what happened next. But like Dennis said, you don't get let off 3RR for being right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that "best known for" required a source. I said it was clear POV which had to be removed. It's an unverifiable and biased statement, no matter how many sources you find that might contain it. It adds no information. It's like saying "Slaughterhouse Five is Vonnegut's best book". You'll find plenty of sources saying so but I sincerely hope you can see that trying to force such a viewpoint into an article would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.110.207 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at his summaries via his edit history, which will show you the levels of his "tastiness". His first summary (on this IP anyway) reads: "02:59, 2 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . .Ronnie Biggs ‎ (NPOV. It's a core fucking policy. Learn what the fuck it means. It means stating the facts, not imposing your judgement on them.)" I can't see any interaction on the page previously which would have led to him being so aggressive. Many of the remainder of his summaries on pages he's edited for the first time read the same way. Shot of morphine? That's two words too many, but you go ahead and hug away if you want to if you think his approach somehow shows he's interacting in a respectful and civil manner. I'll remind you again, not only has he edit warred past 3RR (something that was never specifically brought to his attention), but refused to discuss anything to the point of agreement on talk pages, he has been hugely aggressive and disruptive on a number of pages and is massively guilty of block evasion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, your reverts to Cleo Rocos here, here, here, here, here and here are entirely counterproductive, as you've gone right up to the limit of WP:3RR yourself - twice! You should be counting yourself lucky you didn't get a block as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never said I haven't reverted him (and you also did, as did a number of other editors), but on each ocassion I've asked him to go to the talk page to discuss: something he failed to do in a constructive manner. Instead he reverted everyone. I'll remind you of his first edit on the page—before he is supposed to have moved into "testiness": "and who the fuck took it upon themselves to decide what she is best known for? NPOV people - read it, learn it". A great number of people have tried to reason with him on this page—utterly unsuccessfully. Never mind, he only has a 72 hour block to wait through before he comes back to his charming summaries to cheers us all up with their warmth, humour and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are other avenues available to deal with this. You can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard or get the page semi protected, and if that doesn't work, come here. What you shouldn't do is carry on reverting yourself, propagating the edit war. On two separate occasions, you were one revert away from potentially getting blocked via WP:3RR, and had that happened, I think you'd struggle to use "But he started it!" as a defence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I am well-enough aware of WP:3RR and, as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line. (Actually, as you should know, as edit warring can be undertaken with just one revert, you are as guilty of this in view of the wider picture here). Regardless of that, I have not edit-warred against a host of other editors (and neither did you), but the IP has done. I have not started editing on any page with an edit summary of "pointlessly interrupting a sentence not once, not twice, but three fucking times is incredibly stupid" and I have not tried to avoid a justified block by IP hopping and now find myself sitting on my fifth block. He's damned lucky to only have 72 hours to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to duck out of this conversation now, but I find "as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line" to be worrying. 3RR does not give you a Get Out of Jail Free card to do up to three reverts a day. That you seem to be unwilling to recognise or accept this gives me concern you'll do it again. I personally restrict myself to one revert, and the two here is a serious lapse of judgement on my part. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your parthian shot doesn't really look like that much of a truce, and neither does your ducking the point that just one edit can be edit warring in the the right circumstances. I've not said that I need or want a get out of gaol card, and I'm not overly happy about your previous implication that I would have wanted, needed or pleaded any form of defence for my actions. I'm also ducking out of this: it's gone way past anything useful and good luck dealing with this IP when he transgresses again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was involved in this, but wasn't aware until now that this discussion was taking place here. The problem all along was not so much the content of the IP's edits, but their behaviour - the edit warring and generally confrontational attitude (which continues on their latest talk page post here). Everyone needs to bear in mind that, while blocked, they changed their mind as to the specific wording they considered acceptable. Their initial proposal was against talk page consensus; their final version was, if it had been considered rationally on the talk page, probably have been acceptable to most editors. If an IP (or anyone) is that uncivil and that bent on edit warring, it was quite right to have blocked them regardless of the merits of the wording they were proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "poisonous clueless cunts"? Nice - and it fits so well within the civil approach to editing! - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• And is that a new block evasion too? He appears to have hopped over to 190.21.165.248 (talk · contribs)

I would like to point out the real problem here. Ghmyrtle has shown once again that he/she does not ever read the actual content of edits before reverting or judging them. Changed my mind? No. My first edit removed clear bias from a particular sentence. The current version also does not contain clear bias. My first edit made that particular sentence this:

Cleo Rocos (born 24 July 1962 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter who appeared on The Kenny Everett Television Show.

Meanwhile after my most recent edit the sentence was this:

Cleo Rocos (born 24 July 1962 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter, who starred alongside Kenny Everett on The Kenny Everett Television Show.

And so apparently the first one was "against talk page consensus" but the second one would "probably have been acceptable to most editors"? Given that they are almost identical it's not possible to believe that Ghmyrtle actually understood what was going on. In any case, talk page consensus is of no relevance when core policies are being violated. Just like you couldn't claim a "talk page consensus" to say that consensus was actually spelt concensus, you can't claim a "talk page consensus" that NPOV doesn't apply.

Ghmyrtle provides a convenient example of a problem editor, who explicitly stated that they reverted my edits without reading them, and who is continuing to make stuff up to imply that my edits were somehow problematic. This kind of casual anti-IP discrimination is endemic, and is a huge problem; as you see here, it led to usernames edit warring to keep the article in an obviously deficient state. 83.44.110.207 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Block evasion should not be tolerated. However, short of a range block, there's no way to prevent IP-hopping block evaasion. If the evasion is restricted to certain articles, we can semi-protect the page. (BTW, the IP appears to be based in Santiago, Chile - where does Colombia come from?). Uncivil editing is condoned all the time at Wikipedia. I don't see why IPs should be held to a higher standard than editors with accounts. SchroCat should be careful about edit-warring. Their disclaimers that they are not doing so are hollow. Also, at least in this topic they are as aggressive as they claim the IP to be outside of ANI, which undermines their credibility. Dennis's block was fine, but it's not going to help much (as I stated earlier). Drmies's focus on content shouldn't get lost in the procedural dance. Unless someone has a suggestion as to what to do next administratively - and skip the back-and-forth bickering as it's not constructive - that is warranted by the history, this topic is going to get closed. The article itself hasn't been disrupted in about 24 hours and the penultimate editor 24 hours before that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we condone incivility - we might tolerate it in context where patience has been sorely tested, but I don't think we should encourage it as good practice. Similarly, being able to circumvent blocks by IP hopping is a real problem, and one I have no simple answer for other than aggressive adherence to RBI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Condone" may not be the best word, but we don't tolerate it just when it is provoked. From a sanctions perspective, we respond inconsistently (I might say all over the place). Although we don't - and shouldn't - "encourage" it, editors' views as to what constitutes incivility are hardly homogeneous.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel an appropriate post-script belongs here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Echigo mole trolling about Dougweller acting as a "meatpuppet" being enabled by a disruptive IP hopper

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.

---

• 111.161.30.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• IP range: 101.0.71.0/24 [50]

Echigo mole has used what appears to be an open proxy IP from China to troll on a user talk page.[51] The first IP 111 was reported at SPI by ArtifexMayhem, who at first had guessed it might be Mikemikev and then by me at WikiProject Open Proxies. I left a commentary at ArtifexMayhem's SPI report, tagging User:111.161.30.218 as recommended by CU Deskana. Please could the ipsock be blocked, regardless of the delay in completing the proxy check?

Johnuniq left a message that the edit by 111 should be removed as an obvious posting by a banned editor, the type of edit precisely covered by a motion of arbcom relating to WP:ARBR&I. [52] In the meantime the IP hopper in the range above responded to Echigo mole's post, despite the advice offered by Johnuniq. They are the only person making use of that narrow range 101.0.71.0/24 at the moment.[53] The IP hopper repeated Echigo mole's trolling suggestion that Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was engaged in meatpuppetry.[54] Some time later, I redacted 111's comment and in addition further clarified the arbcom motion concerning such posts, in particular requesting that the post should not be restored or the disruptive trolling acted upon. The tag I placed on User:111.161.30.218 was then removed by the IP hopper 101.[55] He then restored the redacted edit of Echigo mole[56] ignoring the advice he had been offered by Johnuniq and me. Finally he posted a comment on User talk:Dougweller, directly addressing the trolling questions of Echigo mole to Dougweller.[57]

The IP hopper has been asked by multiple users to register an account, but so far has not done so. In this case their IP hopping is a way of evading scrutiny, in particular with regard to the arbcom motion. The user of the range is gaming the system to avoid being sanctioned for their obvious disruption. Accusing Dougweller in this manner is just an unsubstantiated personal attack. Perhaps the narrow range could be blocked until the unique person behind it makes a commitment to edit in a less disruptive way. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've informed Johnuniq and Dougweller of this report. I have no easy way of informing the IP hopper. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all a bit odd. At User talk:BlackHades the IP says "One cannot help but wonder, given Dougweller's ideas are not founded in an arbitration ruling, where did they originate? Perhaps the answer lies with his little Freudian slip in the edit summary here." Besides the fact that my comments, right or wrong, on proxy editing were an afterthought after my post on sock puppets, I am definitely not a sock or the puppetmaster of User:Guettarda who actually made the edit. I'd better go tell him about this now. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The suspicion (well, my suspicion, I don't know about the other IP's) is that your and/or Guettarda's involvement in the article talk page was canvassed privately by Mathsci, and this was the reason for your repeating of Mathsci's interpretation of the arbitration ruling, and perhaps also for Guettarda's accidental mention of Mathsci in his edit summary. I must say, Mathsci's immediately showing up and posting this thread to defend you seems supportive of the same idea. It would be a very strange coincidence if this weren't the case. If it's the case it would not necessarily be meatpuppetry, but it would be stealth canvassing. I don't claim that's the only possible explanation, but it would be helpful if you were to answer my question from BlackHades' user talk. If your familiarity with this article's history is only from watching it as you said, I would like to know how that resulted in your posting one editor's interpretation of an arbitration ruling which did not receive much support from arbitrators, rather than the actual ruling. 101.0.71.20 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose in addition to the question above, I should ask you directly: was your participation in the article or talk page privately solicited by Mathsci? You haven't given me any reason to believe you're dishonest, so I should give you the opportunity to tell the truth before trying to argue with you. 101.0.71.12 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• FPaS has blocked the Echigo mole ipsock after he edited for a second time. The IP hopper's "suspicions", repetitons of the trolling suggestions of this community banned user, are wholly false. At this stage the IP hopper should stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks on registered editors in good standing, like Dougweller or me; he should stop enabling the distorted rantings of a community banned troll; and he should register an account instead of IP hopping to evade scrutiny. Should the IP hopper continue to make unsubstantiated personal attacks to further Echigo mole's trolling, he could be reported at WP:AE for violating the arbcom motion and it might be appropriate for the narrow range from which he edits, 101.0.71.0/24, to be blocked. An article under strict arbcom sanctions, constantly plagued by sockpuppetry and proxy-editing, is watched by multiple editors, including administrators like KillerChihuahua and Dougweller and checkusers like Elockid, who blocked RockKnocker as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev before any report had been made. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, you are not an editor in good standing. I've now looked at enough of the arbitration archives to see that you have been sanctioned under the race intelligence case, including a restriction you currently are under with respect to posting AE reports, which I assume is why you instead raise the matter here. When NE Ent closed this thread, I hoped that meant the matter was resolved, and your reverting an admin's closure of your own AN/I thread was disruptive. I am confident that I've done nothing wrong here, so you're welcome to continue pursuing the matter if you choose. But I do not recommend that, as it will bring you nothing but embarrassment. 101.0.71.12 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

NE ent is not an administrator. Dougweller is. He was also an arbcom clerk from 2009 until 2012. You are currently harassing him on his talk page. You have repeated the malicious comments placed on wikipedia by a community banned user, casting aspersions on a series of editors in good standing, including me. You continue to malign various editors here. You have been told about the arbcom motion that prohibits restoring comments by Echigo mole, but nevertheless have chosen to do so, even freely quoting the redacted text. This is not the first time your editing has been problematic. A year ago, IP hopping in the range 110.32.0.0/16, you edit warred on Race and intelligence blanking a paragraph of the lede three times.[58][59][60] Please register an account if you wish to be taken seriously. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should stop calling yourself an "editor in good standing", as an editor in good sanction is defined as one not under any sanctions. The sanction you currently are under is logged here: "Mathsci is instructed to refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case. In the case of complaints arising from edits on Arbcom pages, he is instructed to seek enforcement only from Arbcom itself or the Arbcom clerks." What do you intend to mean by calling yourself a user in good standing? By calling yourself that you are either lying, or using a definition of that term that no else uses. 101.0.71.7 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is problematic because you have been making false claims about various users (Dougweller, KillerChihuahua, Guettarda and me, perhaps others) and violated the arbcom motion by restoring a diff of a banned editor. You should reread the arbcom motion again, because what you have done is precisely what that motion tells editors not to do. If you don't retract the claims, then you—or your narrow IP range—will probably be reported at WP:AE. Your editing seems to be a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. Harassing Dougweller on his own talk page: what on earth were you thinking of? Incidentally calling me a "liar" as you have done is likely to get you blocked fairly rapidly: you should probably redact that statement. And yes, I am in good standing. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not redact anything, as I have done nothing wrong. When I restored the other IP's post, the IP had not been blocked or identified as Echigo mole by anyone except you. Whatever the motion says, it cannot possibly demand editors to correctly predict which IPs are and are not banned editors before they are blocked, or give the authority of making that determination to an editor sanctioned in the case instead of to admins. If you think you must report me at AE then go ahead, but as you are already under a sanction for making frivolous AE reports, doing so would probably be a bad idea. 101.0.71.9 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You said that I was "lying". Please see WP:NPA and redact that comment. There were warnings from two users, first Johnuniq and then me, that the posting was by a banned editor. I posted an explicit message about the motion and how it applied to the posting of Echigo mole. It was an obvious sock (as stated by FPaS in the block summary) and my identification was correct. You acted disruptively by ignoring both warnings, using a time-window disruptively to restore the message and act upon it as if it had been made by a good faith editor. A responsible editor would have heeded the warnings. You edited entirely against the spirit of the motion, continuing the banned user's trolling on User talk:BlackHades, User talk:Dougweller and here. Your distorted misreading of the advice of Future Perfect at Sunrise is just more of the same disruption. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's very hard to see how these templated warnings from the administrators Dougweller[61] and EdJohnston[62] could be the result of meatpuppetry. And why would a frequent editor of the article like Guettarda be a meatpuppet? The IP hopper (and his friend Echigo mole) would doubtless disagree. On the other hand, since the IP hopper appears to know what a watchlist is, at some stage he must have had a registered account. Could he then please use it? Mathsci (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2013 (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 removal of maintenance templates

I hesitate to bring this to AN/I since I am fairly confident that the editor in question, User:Kingminister, is editing in good faith. However, three times over the past few days Kingminister removed what I would think would be fairly non-controversial maintenance tags ('unreferenced section' and 'no footnotes') from the article Rajamanthri Walauwa. I have re-added the maintenance tags and noted the problem using standard information templates at User talk:Kingminister. Kingminister has not commented on the article talk page or either of our user talk pages, nor included edit summaries when editing. I think that attention from an outside party is warranted to ensure that what has become a slow-motion edit war between Kingminister and me does not escalate.

Diffs:

• 14 Feb I added 'unreferenced section'.
• 14 Feb Kingminister removed the tag.
• 15 Feb I undid the removal & left a comment at Kingminister's user talk.
• 15 Feb Kingminister again removed 'unreferenced section'.
• 15 Feb Kingminister removed an older 'no footnotes' tag.
• 17 Feb I restored both maintenance tags & left a 'caution' on user talk.
• 17 Feb Kingminister again removed both maintenance tags. Kingminister re-added the tags, and then again removed them in a series of edits that day.
• 18 Feb I re-added both tags & left a 'warning' on user talk.

In the spirit of 3RR, I will stop editing Rajamanthri Walauwa. Cnilep (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think I see a silent WP: OWN problem with this user. With only 4 edits to user talk space (none of them responses to the numerous notifications they have received) and almost all of their edits to Rajamanthri, Walauwa, or a combination of the names: Rajamanthri Walauwa, and reading some of those articles, it is clear to me that this WP: SPA really needs to talk to their fellow editors. If they refuse to contact, I think some kind of administrator action would definitely be warranted. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP: SPADE rant by troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have no edits anywhere except this page. It is clear to me that this WP: SPA really needs to talk to their fellow editors. The sum of your edits under the above account and your alternate account is about 50. Yet, you display quite the wiki-erudition. Are you sock-peacock? I think some kind of administrator action would definitely be warranted! 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) WP: SPADE. Could somebody please block this troll? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And it continues: diff.--Auric talk 11:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP at Ajativada

User:Aoclery has been blocked indef at 14 february 2013 for abuse of editing privileges ANI-report. Since then, three IP's have been used for personal attacks and vandalism:

• User:174.1.118.185 Personal attacks at NL Wikipedia: diff one day block
• User:32.60.67.185 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff
• User:64.66.16.87 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff

Action against these IP's, and protection of Ajativada would be welcome. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ajativada continues... diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support a (semi-) protect, and I've filed an RPP. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have semi protected it for a week. I think the IP edits there constitute a content dispute rather than pure vandalism, but it's clear who they are from and the article will benefit from some time without further disruption. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

24.57.110.189

One of the members of the "Serbian Youth League" is apparently back (for history cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive) in the form of 24.57.110.189 (talk · contribs), which I just noticed has made some classic changes: [63] and the even more transparent [64]. Indeed it looks like the history of the article List of Serbs indicates their previous IPs: 24.57.117.246 (talk · contribs) - conspiciously the last message on that talk page is my WP:ARBMAC warning. Before that, it was 24.57.115.42 (talk · contribs). Not all of the contributions of this user are abusive, but they're another one of those who don't really communicate and just keep plowing away. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP at Ajativada

User:Aoclery has been blocked indef at 14 february 2013 for abuse of editing privileges ANI-report. Since then, three IP's have been used for personal attacks and vandalism:

• User:174.1.118.185 Personal attacks at NL Wikipedia: diff one day block
• User:32.60.67.185 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff
• User:64.66.16.87 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff

Action against these IP's, and protection of Ajativada would be welcome. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ajativada continues... diff Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support a (semi-) protect, and I've filed an RPP. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have semi protected it for a week. I think the IP edits there constitute a content dispute rather than pure vandalism, but it's clear who they are from and the article will benefit from some time without further disruption. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

24.57.110.189

One of the members of the "Serbian Youth League" is apparently back (for history cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive) in the form of 24.57.110.189 (talk · contribs), which I just noticed has made some classic changes: [65] and the even more transparent [66]. Indeed it looks like the history of the article List of Serbs indicates their previous IPs: 24.57.117.246 (talk · contribs) - conspiciously the last message on that talk page is my WP:ARBMAC warning. Before that, it was 24.57.115.42 (talk · contribs). Not all of the contributions of this user are abusive, but they're another one of those who don't really communicate and just keep plowing away. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

Hello,

I recently added two sections to the article Nabih Berri. User:Samar Layoun, who may also be User:MariaFrangieh, just deleted that information using two accounts. From what I understand, the same user is not allowed to use two accounts on one article, as if to make it look as two different people, and they're certainly not allowed to delete referenced information.

Thanks, Argo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo333 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's called a sock-puppet. There's a separate place to file those concerns and have them investigated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPI Strangesad (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

Resolved

 – Stand down from mop alert. -- Dianna (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP and it's a big one, some 50 or so requests in need of attention. Mops to the ready, folks. tutterMouse (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh snap, here I was working on requested edits on semi-protected, of which there were 54 when I started. Things always get backed up at RFPP on the weekends. I will do some after I get back from the gym. -- Dianna (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Me and Mark are on it. The backlog is complicated however, because many is requests for unprotection, or turning unprotection to recent changes, something that a user needs to look why the page was protected in the first place. Secret ^account 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive POV-pushing by UsmanullahPK

A new user, UsmanullahPK, is on a very active campaign in which he moves pages and deletes content without even discussing these controversial changes first [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. I first informed him in good faith, encouraging him to discuss changes of this kind before making them.[73] As he ignored the comment, I then warned him about this behavior. [74]. No reaction then either, several of the diffs above were made after both the information and the warning. Several of the page moves are controversial, and as seen in the diffs, he twice deleted all the content at the disambiguation page Musa.Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified the user that you have opened this thread. I have done so for you just now. -- Dianna (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz did notify them almost an hour ago. Right now both Kww and I have given UsmanullahPK final warnings about copy and paste and regular moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As said above, I did notify him right away [75].Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he continues in exactly the same way, despite the information (first= and the warning (second) by myself, and the final warnings by CambridgeBayWeather andKww.[76], [77], [78].Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Jeppiz. I must have been looking at a cached version or something :/ -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that UsmanullahPK has never made a talk page edit? He's been here since mid-December. -- Dianna (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology and don't worry about it, happens to us all sometimes. And yes, I noticed that he never comments. Unfortunately, he doesn't WP:HEAR either.Jeppiz (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict)Disruptively pushing a pro-Islamic POV is not acceptable, and is definitely a blockable offense. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to block him, the disruption was ongoing; he is doing damage. 48 hours to start; if we can't get him working with us instead of against us it will have to escalate. -- Dianna (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Their unblock request is in broken English. The photo on their user page shows they're quite young. In fact that userpage probly needs oversighting. Seb is over there right now trying to communicate with them. -- Dianna (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems the kid doesn't even understand what's happened to him just now, and with the limited language-skills, we might not even get to the point. That's probably why he never used talkpages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is no indication that he speaks English apart from the most basic phrases. I'm quite sure his intentions weren't bad, but I cannot see him contributing to Wikipedia in the near future, at least not in English. That is not an accusation in any way, just a statement of facts. For the record, I could not have contributed in English at age 13 either, so he can of course become a very good contributor in the future if he learns English and is able to read the guidelines. For now, though, he will not be able to contribute.Jeppiz (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. I have sent an email to Oversight to get the private info off his user page. I've posted something at his talk page to try to help him get started on framing a better unblock request. If he doesn't show in the next 48 hours that he is able to edit / learn to edit, the block will have to go to indefinite. -- Dianna (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We should find somebody to get this in Pashto. This could happen more often with Afghanistan getting wider internet-access. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We normally draw the line at 13. I would put it higher, myself, but generally we delete user pages with identifying information for children under 13, but not for 13 and up.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Kevin. I thought it best to apply for oversight given their apparent naïvety, and the person who was on duty agreed with me and hid it all. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't object. We'll all be back here in 48 hours, and we'll see what more needs to be done then.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson

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.

---

SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing by admin KillerChihuahua. Since the ban has expired she has returned and continues to push her fringe theories and make personal attacks on other editors. See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#SuzanneOlsson for the blocking admin's opinions supporting a topic ban. I would therefore like to propose a topic ban for this editor on the article Roza Bal, and any directly related articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give more information like clarify the topic, what the mainstream views are, and what the fringe views are? What's the backstory here?--v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The back story is that SuzanneOlsson has incessantly pushed her own theories and website about this topic. Anyone who disagrees with her point of view, or dares to remove the link to her website is subject to a torrent of abuse. This can be seen at Talk:Roza Bal and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com --Biker Biker (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the talk page. I don't understand it because I know nothing about the topic. Please educate me. What exactly is the problem, with diffs? It's your job to make your case and you've not made it. You're only alluding to the matter that a case exists and we have to find it. Not trying to be a dick, but we need you to be more clear here on this board instead of pointing us elsewhere and expecting us to gather what you're getting at.--v/r - TP 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Short version: Jesus didn't die on the cross, his brother did and then Jesus left Palestine and died decades later as a very old man and was buried at Roza Bal - he is supposedly one of the two graves - and that should be in the Roza Bal article and a couple of Jesus articles. Which is a problem, because there are zero serious historians and/or archeologists who think there is anything to it. A cross or rosary found there is cited as evidence. Now, no one cares what Olsson believes, that's her business. But she can't put it in our articles until someone serious, someone major, someone, IOW, who meets RS, has written about it. She's an SPA with The Truth(tm) and we've all had experiences with such before. This is why she's here, I'm afraid. To "set the record straight" (from what the regular historians and anthropologists and theologists say) to "let your readers know". I wish her well in her endeavors, but I wish her to stop trying to popularize them using Wikipedia to do so. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you have been left with such a bad impression of me. I have not been here to 'push my views' or my website. My website has been at Wikipedia for years associated with various topics. Recently I acquired the domain name Roza Bal and have moved my entire website to point to that domain instead of the old one. There is nothing sinister happening. I have however been shouting loud and clear that some editors have pushed their own agendas when editing the Roza Bal page. Scholars are shot down as 'crackpots' and valid sources and links removed so the entire theory looks like fringe crackpots- thus offending millions of Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide. Religious scholars like James Tabor, Elaine Pagels, and Fida Hassnain are not referenced, or are only referenced with a note that this is all fringe crackpot theories invented by local shop keepers and manufacturers of fake relics. It is all too shocking to see this deliberate, religiously biased misinformation at Wikipedia. This conflict with Wiki editors goes back several years and is always centered around one or two particular editors...I am not raising a ruckus to hurt myself so badly here- but to correct the terrible inaccuracies and biases at the Roza Bal Wiki page. I have been taking a terrible beating over this. It would be much easier to just walk away. But the editing has not been honest, fair, scholarly, or accurate. That's the problem. It's never been about me or my website or my personal "crackpot" views. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels is a well-respected intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have been monitoring this dispute from the outside and I notice that SuzanneOlsson has accused those who want to keep her from editing this article of calling her a "crackpot" (in quotes) multiple times; however, Ctrl+F on Talk:Roza Bal indicates that she is the only one who has used this word. There seems to be some serious assumption of bad faith, and not on the parts of those who are arguing against her. I would be willing to guess that some real-world experts on the subject have called her this in the past, and she is now projecting her feelings toward those people onto other Wikipedians. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why SuzanneOlsson throws around names like Elaine Pagels. Anyone who has a look at the website will realize that this is not an academic publication, and linking to the site is basically spamming since the most informative thing on it is a link to Amazon.com. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing that out.The link led to my website- which never mentions Elaine Pagels there. The books are there as 'fillers' while the entire website has to be moved to a new server and created completely from scratch in a new program/format. It isn't intended to be 'scholarly' but to point everyone to additional resources. That's all I can manage for now. The site is under construction for the next few weeks. I did not perceive this as a "sales pitch" for amazon, nor spamming. I am sorry that you expressed that impression. Further, as websites go, it contains the least amount of information about me! So much for self- aggrandizement and self-promotion. I have promoted every other author more than myself! By the way, please note that I have done no editing, inserted no links to my website nor anyone else's. I have answered editors who attacked me and wrote misleading untruths. I regard that as necessary so the inaccurate info does not remain as the 'last word'...if anyone knows a better way, please explain it to me. I resent being called names and having innuendos about me posted by Wiki editors. Wouldn't that bother you too? Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne Olsson~~.

Elaine Pagels is a very reputable scholar. Minorview (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support formalisation of voluntary withdrawal from topic Article edits, but allow Talk edits - this is giant fringe, and has been massively disruptive creating/deforming Roza Bal, Unknown years of Jesus possibly some other articles, but as it stands Suzanne hasn't re added these self-published sources or websites to the articles. Suzanne has undertaken on Talk:Roza Bal to go away and try and get some basic refs with page numbers and ISBNs and come back. There are a couple of tangible page refs which only exist in Urdu translations and I suspect Suzanne is probably the only one who can get them. In the meantime, like it or not, Ahmadiyya claims and use of Sanskrit/Persian texts, however ludicrous to mainstream scholars are still notable, so they need WP:IRS sourcing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If the problem is Ms Olsson's website, wouldn't it be a simple matter to just remove the link to the website until such time as the site has completed migration at which point its suitability as a source can be reassessed? Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I think T Paris' request for clarification with diffs is reasonable, given the length of talk page discussions and I will try to provide a brief response. I became aware of Ms Olsson's edits a few weeks ago, but my understanding is that the situation goes back to 2008 and may be characcterized as follows:

2008 issues

• Ms Olsen wrote and self-published a book that refers to a building known as Roza Bal and her book proposes that Jesus of Nazareth died in Kashmir at age 130 and is buried in that building.
• In 2008 debate started about possible WP:COI, her use of Self-published sources, including her own book, and the issue of non-WP:RS items
• User comments from then are on her talk page and I will just reproduce some here:

• In May 2008 she was told about reliable sourcing by user:PaulB
• She was told in May 2008 not to add self-published items to Wikipedia by user:Dougweller.
• And user:itsmejudith told her in clear terms that the Olsson book is not reliable and should not be used
• There were also basic policy issues in 2008 and there is a statement by user:Fullstop that: "Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works.

2013 issues

• Recently Ms Olson obtained the website Rozabal.com and restared adding article links about her website, along with references to her own book and some people she knows in Kashmir.
• There were often less than properly sourced items that other editors objected to and removed. As far as I can tell I did not actually remove any of her article text myself.
• She was blocked for a week by user:KillerChihuahua. User:JamesBWatson, the admin who declined to unblock, echoed the same sentiment as user:Fullstop had expressed in 2008, and said: "you think everyone else is wrong, that you are the victim of a conspiracy, that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and prejudiced, etc." and added that the problem has been "your single-minded concern with the notion that you are RIGHT and anyone who expresses an opposing view is WRONG"
• The user has also made somewhat strange statements, e.g. that Doug Weller reverted her because he has a secret crush on her, etc. At one point she apologizes about saying things, but later says similar things. Very unusual.
• She decided to stop two weeks, but has since returned and made statements regarding sources by Elaine Pagels supporting her views. I think Pagels would be surprised to hear that.
• User:Biker Biker who was not involved in the previous discussions started this thread.

In January 2013 I predicted that this user would be banned sooner or later, partly because she said somewhere that she will defend the Roza Bal hypothesis until the day she dies, and that type of determination often results a topic ban; also because in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and still does not source properly. I saw no way out then, and see none now. I think a topic ban happens either now or later. May as well be now before more user time is taken up. I have really had enough of this. As I said on her talk page, I stopped editing the Roza Bal page 2 weeks ago and will not be editing that article or commenting on it ever again. This has been just enough. Wikipedia can be a very strange place. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Roza Bal related article edits, broadly construed, as suggested by user:EdJohnston on Feb 1 2013, prior to this thread. I have spent too much time on this, and this will be my last comment on the issue, and I will not be responding here further. Will just look back later to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic and spam ban per "the puppy" (KC) and WP:SPA. If the site becomes a "WP:RS" in the future, then information and links can be added at that time. — Ched :  ?  14:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KillerChihuahua and History2007's useful information and diffs. That must have taken some time to collect and lay out, History; I don't blame you for sounding tired. But as regards a "spam ban", per Ched — well, I don't mean to go all lawyerly — of course I'm for that if there's some practical point to it — but surely Wikipedia has a generalised spam ban? Nobody gets to spam us. Most especially not with links to websites they have an interest in driving traffic to. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
• Support per KC and History2007.--v/r - TP 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KC and History2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. If we don't do it now we'll just go through all of this again at a later time. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Dougweller. Five years seems enough.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Just a quick look at Talk:Roza Bal shows that something indefinite is required to stop the waste of time regarding the peddling of unsupportable fringe views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - though I'd have more faith if the editor in question came to understand the premise of WP:OR and volunteered not to make Roza Bal related edits on that basis. But failing that, community-enforced action is clearly necessary. Stalwart111 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You still have faith that might happen, Stalwart? People have been explaining WP:OR to her for at least five years. Here's a link from 2008, and here's one from 2013. Surely it's time we concluded she doesn't want to know. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

• Possibly not, and let me be clear - I support a topic ban entirely. I just tend to think there is a better chance of long-term "rehabilitation" of TB'd editors if there is some element of volunteerism in their instigation. But that's obviously not always possible and 5 years of WP:IDHT is justification enough for an enforced topic ban, absolutely. Stalwart111 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Recent comments like this suggest she doesn't still understand the issue here after five years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, broadly construed, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, and articles about people who study the topic, and literature about the topic. Note that such a topic ban would effectively ban the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I made errors when I first came here in 2005.Even naively allowing others (children and grandchildren) use my computer and log on to Wiki was a mistake. They became 'sock puppets'.. something I never even knew existed (my mind didn't work that way- nothing devious or fraudulent was ever intended) and it stopped immediately once I was made aware the problem. Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not. I have been reminded of this by several editors, but I have not done this! They were reminders,. Nothing more. I also objected to discrimination at Wiki, such as attacking my 'self-published' book while allowing others to remain because they were 'more notable' according to certain Wiki editors. In one incident, the self-published author of fiction even acknowledged me as his source and inspiration. He remains at Wiki to this day. I dont come to Wiki more than once every 2-3 years, and then only to update a broken link on one or two pages, links that have been here for years. I have not gone around Wiki inserting links to my web pages or books, and what is here had been here since years ago.Why is it now suddenly criminal and sinister? Inaccurate, misleading,prejudicial information however, is inserted, the Roza Bal page being an example. I asked permission to make contributions to help the page, new sources, documentaries, et cetera. We all acknowledged COI and were mindful of it. My son suddenly died and I had to deal with that and the funeral right in the middle of this. Before I had a chance to search out the references as I promised I would, everything was deleted, I was under attack, and things from 5 years ago brought up as though this was ongoing and regular. It isn't. I acknowledged that since getting the domain 'rozabal' I would have to be more careful. But to accuse me falsely of going around Wiki inserting links to my book and website "everywhere" this is simply not true. I do not think that Doug Weller is a good editor for the Roza Bal page. I have always said that. I do not think that History2007 knows that much about history and should not be making contributions to the Roza Bal page. He knows as little about the facts of Roza Bal as does Doug Weller. I may not be swift at understanding all Wiki policies- simply because I'm not here often enough. I am not familiar with what keys to strike to create indentations or topic headings here.I dont edit much here, less than once every year or two. I don't pretend to know everything about Roza Bal, or about Wiki, but I do know when false or misleading information is promoted. That's the real issue, the real problem. I noticed that some new fresh eyes (editors) have come to the Roza Bal page. They too noticed problems and recommended changes. I am most grateful for that. Thank You,and whatever the outcome for me here, I hope the page will continue to be improved by others. That's all I've ever asked for here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not." --->11:21, 29 January 2009 — raekyt 05:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another? 07:41, 14 February 2009 you as an IP? because minutes later you do that edit]. And this. Inserting a link to your webpage. adding your book as a cite. Adding your website as an EL... — raekyt 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those links to edits. You showed where my book links have been there for years. You started with a link that was there since 2009. Virtually nothing changed except minor. Further, if the link pointed to an old website, and now to a new website,that isn't the same as the implication you are suggesting. The only point is they were already there for years. Thank You for taking the time though. I appreciate your efforts. I think it just goes to prove what I have been saying is true. If I were at Wiki inserting links on numerous topics for years and years, that's entirely different. I would not like anyone to be left with that erroneous impression. I think you just helped clarify this. The links were already there. Thank you for your efforts. I believe they really will be helpful.Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It shows a long-term pattern of WP:PROMOTION. — raekyt 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything related to Jesus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, articles about people who study the topic, literature about the topic, and places linked to the fringe theories she relentlessly promotes, concurring with Binksternet that such a topic ban would probably amount to a ban of the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could change behavior with education, role-modelling open-mindedness, instead of power-trips and bans. Whatever. Banning is so much easier. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Time for decision? Has been on the board for close to 4 days now, and no major new revelations in the past day or so. A decision may be in order before it just gets archived away. History2007 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OVERKILL?*:::::::Ahhhh I see that History 2007 is here for the jugular. I think all you have proven is (1) Both myself and this topic have been here for years. (2) Especially since I got a domain with same name as the topic, this is now a clear COI,(and I agree) but does not prevent me from editing if I am not "self-promoting", nor is a ban on 'all things religious'-or-'jesus' or any of the recommended bans called for (see what Orange Mike recommended. Whew! How is all that relevant as I never edited any of those topics?) This is just plain over-reaction and over- kill, unjustified and uncalled for. (3.) Links to my web site and book were here for years- now suddenly removed whilst fictional books appear as Wiki reference(this has been another ongoing problem between editor DougWeller and myself for years) (4.) Conflicts are about content, not about self-promotion, and conflicts are always with the same Wiki editor.(just a reminder that the problem with accurate sourcing and my help updating the page arose during a death in family when I had to turn my attention away from sourcing for a few days. The Wiki editors knew that yet used that opportunity to delete everything valid and seek a ban) (5.)Note that since new editors have joined in helping improve and update the page, they are making contributions quite similar to what I suggested. (6) I am rarely here at Wiki, perhaps once a year or less. I do not go from page to page. Isn't a total ban on all topics a tad "overkill"? You have a nice day History2007. Please do not get over zealous about topics like rosary beads and fake relics, least not until you have all the facts. If you are unsure, please ask me. I'll be delighted to help you with history. You have a nice day, and please try to stay away from Craig's List. All the best, SueSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban on articles related to Roza Bal and to Jesus. SuzanneOlsson seems to have a clear agenda that the she is pushing, that agenda has zero support under WP:RS and the user has been made aware of that on several occasions, but still continued.Jeppiz (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a "clear agenda". If that were true I would have been at Wiki on a regular basis pushing my views everywhere. I have never done that. My only concern has always been the lack of accuracy and true historical information on the Roza Bal page, which is an area I do claim some amount of expertise. To insinuate more is absolutely incorrect and misleading. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attacks, or the comment about crushes. There should be a conflict of interest warning about adding links to your own Web site. Has that warning been given since 2008? Strangesad (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Strangesad, I did make a joke about DougWeller having a crush on me. I am guilty as charged. It shouldn't be taken out of context. Regarding the links to my web ages, they have been here since 2005. The problems (as I see it) is that I was under constant attack (by same editor for over 5 years) whilst at same time, that editor allowed self-published FICTION links. I strongly objected- and I feel that was within my rights since I was the one under attack, and since I repeatedly pointed out the double standard being used by "some" Wiki editors on that page. I dont think that editor and I will be exchanging Christmas cards this year. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Please. Do you all see yourselves? This piling on is a ghastly example of overkill when a simple COI admonishment would do just as well. Ignocrates (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Caught in the Act!}} I am very distressed. This was just posted at Wiki, and DougWeller-AKA-KillerChihuahua has been the one I have complained about for 5 years at Wiki, the one doing unfair and misleading edits here, the one who started the ban on me, and, as Killer Chihuahua enacted a week long ban on me. Based on this new information, I think this entire ban thing against me ought to be dropped. This is terribly significant and defines just what I've been up against. Click on this link for the page about this Administrator> [[79]] SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you have not provided any evidence for that accusation nor have I found any evidence for it elsewhere. Second, even if that were the case, it would not matter one bit. A great number of us have looked at your edits, and the answers here show that there is an almost unanimous consensus among many users that your edits have been disruptive. So far from the "this entire ban thing" being dropped, it should be closed and enforced, as that is the consensus view.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Making accusations of sockpuppetry on two admins is very serious business. It has since been revdel'd by another admin so it's not clear who raised it and in any event throwing it into this topic ban proposal is a total red herring that tries to throw the discussion off. This "new information" as you call it has absolutely no bearing on the topic ban discussion as it was neither of them that raised the proposal in the first place. I've been sitting on the fence on this one but I'm afraid I'd have to support a topic ban as well as it is obvious that your closeness to the field has blinded you to what everyone has been telling you. As I have only made 1 comment here above but have otherwise never interacted with you nor edited these articles before, so I don't think anyone here has any issue with me saying that I'm totally uninvolved. Blackmane (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Blackmane, First, I have no idea how the one (or two) Administrators got accused of sock puppetry. I think it is relevant. Very.If an Administrator is misrepresenting himself/herself. I emphasize that since others have stepped in to edit the Roza Bal page, there have been no more problems. I am not and never have been trying to "push my views" about a "fringe theory". I have always been objecting to deliberately misleading-misguiding Wiki readers. I would have no problem with a ban on DougWeller- no more editing the Roza Bal page. The newcomers have been doing an awesome job- which just goes to show you I must not have been so "Wrong" after all. I dont mind staying away from the page now. I feel vindicated by other Wiki editors. These proposed bans are overkill. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OH! I see that History 2007 is also now under fire. He is the "editor" who told me to go edit at Craig List and made other insinuations. Look guys, I have never been a problem at Wiki except on the one page, Roza bal, and always with the same editor, DougWeller. recently Killer Chihuahua and History 2007 made an appearance.. the same ones who are now under fire here at Wiki. This topic of a ban on me is so uncalled for, and such dramatic overkill. Now the very editors I complained about and had issues with are on the line. Not one, but THREE of them! History2007 was particularly off the wall when he made accusations about fake ancient relics and fake rosary beads. I stood up to him because I know how off the wall his remarks are/were. He was first to vote for a ban on me. Now he is under scrutiny by other WEiki editors for very same issues. I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Suzanne Olsson, every edit you make here just reinforces my support for the topic ban. You seem to waste all your time complaining about other users, and that is hardly constructive. Neither DougWeller nor Killer Chihuahua is accused of anything, and your continuous repetition of that is not doing your case any good. The accusation against History2007 was thrown out as unfounded.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jeppiz, with all due respect sir, I just found it odd that the very issues that brought me here in the first place were also brought before Administrators. Whether Mr. DougWeller and History2007 were cleared of charges or not, I had not noticed. I was alarmed by the way the charges were worded because they reflected my own similar experiences. It seems inappropriate that you would turn those complaints around as though somehow they made me at fault. That is hardly the case! Anyways, I certainly don't want to annoy you nor other decent respectable editors here. That's not helpful. If I notice any more similar complaints against these two Administrator/Editors, , I promise I wont say another word about them here. You have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose What the hell is wrong with all you trigger happy editors nowadays? The proposer has failed to even provide a diff and you are all piling on?? I looked at the talk page and Suzanne did not seem to have recently falen out of line. I'm losing hope in wikipedians. Pass a Method talk 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose How about a single diff showing a disruptive mainspace edit after SO's block expired? NE Ent 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: No, no one can, given that there have been no mainspace edits at all. However, if that question is being asked rhetorically as an indication of some type of rehabilitation I must beg to differ. A quick look at the user's talk page shows that as of a couple of days ago, statements such as "I am standing up for the truth... I am hoping at some point DougWeller will leave the Wiki pages ... he has done a lot of damage" are still being made in parallel to this ANI discussion. That does not look like a sign of a form of rehabilitation. I must say that Chihuahua's reading of the "set the record straight" situation still persists. Now why do I post this? Frankly because I am tired of the huge amounts of time eaten up by these situations. And frankly I do not know how users such as DougWeller tolerate all of these, and why they should have to continue to tolerate them at all after all this. Let me end by saying that the fact that things have been quiet for a few days and the lack of mainspace edits are no indication of the possibly suggested form of rehabilitation, for unless something is done, the user may participate in consensus discussions (e.g. see the section on relics again) and provide consensus impact which would otherwise not be there. I am sorry, I see no sign that anything is changing; or that it is likely to change at all. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A solution was proposed on Suzanne Olsson's talk page by Ed Johnston here as follows:

Hello SuzanneOlsson. It's my guess that the blocking admin would lift your sanction if you would agree *not* to make any more edits to articles in areas where you have a conflict of interest. You would not edit any Wikipedia articles on topics where you have written any books or articles yourself or posted anything on your own website, www.rozabal.com. That would include anything about the lost years of Jesus or the topic of Jesus in the East. You could not create any new articles on people who have written about these topics. In particular you would have to avoid the following articles:

1. Unknown years of Jesus 2. Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam 3. Jesus bloodline 4. Nicolas Notovitch 5. Fida Hassnain 6. Roza Bal

You would not be able to edit these articles directly, but you could still post on their talk pages. You would agree to edit Wikipedia under only one single account, and not recruit anyone from off Wikipedia to edit these articles. You would agree to leave any questions about the scope of this restriction to the judgment of other editors at WP:COIN or any admin noticeboard. Let me know if you will make this agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage the consideration of this solution because 1) it is a voluntary recusal, 2) it is limited in scope to the 6 specific articles that constitute the COI problem, and 3) it is unlimited in duration. Problem solved without the imposition of a punitive topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I also raised the prospect of a voluntary agreement being more productive (above) and took to SO's talk page to encourage just such a resolution. I think SO understands that whether such restrictions are imposed or accepted voluntarily, they would constitute a ban on editing the only articles in which she has any real interest. Either option would effectively end her editing here. Stalwart111 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And to be clear, the original topic-ban proposal here simply called for EdJohnston's proposal to be formally imposed by the community. Stalwart111 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a ban on editing certain articles, but would allow her to continue using the talk pages. I note that, when I made the proposal of a voluntary ban on her talk page, she rejected it. If you read her comments above, do you get any hint she has changed her mind? She said, "I dont feel I am in the wrong here at all." She still thinks that the people who oppose her edits like History2007 are "off the wall". Does that sound to you like acceptance of a voluntary restriction? EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think she will accept a voluntary recusal, which is limited in scope, if it means avoiding the alternative of an even broader topic ban. It is the rational choice. Ignocrates (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same user? Have you looked at some of the commentary? And you think there would be some benefit to the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would object outright anything that either Dougweller or History 2007 say about a topic ban on me. In the comments section on several occasions, History2007 made erroneous statements and assumptions about Roza Bal. The implications for people in Kashmir and for Ahmaddis were/are dangerous and destructive. Among the comments Histroy200t made was his "assumption" that the Roza Bal story was a fiction in the minds of local shopkeepers, perpetuated to improve tourism, and the relics must be 12th-13th century fakes, with new fake relics to be expected soon. He ridiculed Professor Hassnain's mention of a crucifix type image craved in stone. I had to correct him about the historical use of crucifixes and prayer beads. Comments like this are a slap in the face not only to researchers but to millions of Ahmaddis who have bet their very souls on the accuracy of their research into Roza Bal tomb. We cannot have any Wiki editors going around inserting such kind of information into Wiki articles. It is misleading and outright dangerous. This past week in Kashmir have been hell. Riots, curfews, soldiers with guns outnumber civilians. Kashmiris access Wiki pages too, and such comments and deliberate obfuscation lead to trouble in their real world. I do stand up against this sort of thing at Wiki. I do stand up to editors like Dougweller and History2007. I dont need to be banned on this topic nor any other. (Others have never been the issue here anyway). Since other editors have taken notice and begun contributing to the Wiki 'RozaBal' page, most everything I was objecting to HAS now been changed by them. I feel vindicated and no need to continue editing here. I am grateful attention has been raised by others too. To extend a ban on me to such a wide range of topics in areas that I have clearly never even contributed to is neither fair nor right. Of course I will not agree to those. They have never even been an issue with me here. Some Wiki editors take on Wiki as though it was their "job" and they post themselves at the entry gates of certain pages they have affinity for, as Doug Weller did with the Roza Bal page since years ago, and "History2007" does same elsewhere. Such devotion and so many hours a day at Wiki is commendable. However, it does not make them smart, nor does it make them right. They err just like anyone else. History2007 scared me when he went on his rant about fake relics and crosses and fringe theories. That's not the kind of Wiki editing needed here. Further, it's outright dangerous for some who have to live with these relics and these ideas. It shows a true lack o sensitivity. To this day people are still fighting and dying over these issues. Discretion is best, but these editors have not exhibited any understanding outside their world as "Mall cops". I believe the edits at RozaBal have been deliberately slanted against certain people and their beliefs. I have pointed this out. Other Wiki editors have pointed this out. That's all this has been about. You cannot rehabilitate me nor other editors under such circumstances. The problem is not one of rehabilitation. This ruckus has attracted new people to edit the Roza Bal page, and they edited along the guidelines I recommended since years ago. Just think about it. What is the REAL issue? Editing? No, obviously not. Have a nice day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support What could have been solved with a light slap on a wrist clearly needs to be more formal - and that's based on screeds like directly above. SO simply cannot accept critique when it surrounds their pet topic(s). SO's attempts to denounce and attack her critics paints a very interesting picture. Clearly, the only way forward is a topic ban for now. It is my hope that it does not take more in the near future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to insert this above but encountered difficulty. This is the Kashmir I know and lived in. This is Kashmir this past week. This is what I mean when I say people have to live with these topics every day as though they were life and death. Even a minor slant or predjudice in an article can be harmful. Kashmir Today

Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2013 (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.

Dispute with JHunterJ

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 on an ongoing dispute with JHunterJ (talk · contribs) in the past because I still think of him as fanatic and arbitratry on everyone. Look at his past arguments with others in Talk:Big (film) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. This time, in Talk:The Boys in the Band#Requested move (2013), I'm trying to convince JHunterJ to re-consider his arguments on move proposal that I made. However, he thinks that I went too far because I mentioned his past activities, and I believe that he went too far on everybody, including one editor, especially in the past. He called my arguments poor and uses guidelines as a reason, and I found him too arbitrary. Also, I believe that he is mocking me because his comments imitate mine in that discussion. I don't know how things should have been settled earlier, but I can no longer handle issues with him alone anymore. I need assistance on helping dispute between two of us. I tried other pages, but I think this is the best way to go. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked him to apologize, but he wants me to apologize to him (not sure if it's also). Actually, he said, "Hysterical". Since I don't know what he meant, I feel that he is not going to apologize if I apologize to him first. Therefore, I'm reporting this here. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I wanted him to leave the discussion if he does not apologize. He struck me back by doing the same thing on me. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with JHunterJ in dozens of different disputes over many years, and I've never once found him to be a "fanatic" and/or "arbitrary on everyone". The first step to ending your dispute is to recognize your personal attacks and apologize to him. The second step is to grow up and to stop acting like a child. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What about similar dispute in Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation)? What if he doesn't want to apologize to me? --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also in Talk:All That Jazz (film)? Is apology too late? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

George, after looking at all of this, I'm wondering if you shouldn't be banned from move discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring anybody to apologize, so don't demand one. You're free to apologize yourself though, when appropriate. It facilitates forgiveness. —Rutebega (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Hunter's interpersonal relationships in Talk:Lovin' You and Talk:Season 2? Would they hurt my credibility? --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Talk:Firestarter (novel)? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I can find no personal attacks in any of the talk pages that you have linked to George. I would suggest that you drop the WP:STICK. On the other hand it is not to late for you to apologize to JHunterJ for your unfounded accusations. MarnetteD | Talk 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I did apologize to JHunterJ for accusing him of conflicting with another editor (if there is no such thing) and of lacking common sense. I did not apologize to him yet for accusing him of mocking people and stooping low, but I told him I will try. Hope it's not non-apology, is it? --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Since there is nothing actionable here (and it looks like you are using this noticeboard to continue a dispute) I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Defining someone's arguments as poor is not a personal attack of any sort. It holds to "comment on content not the editor". He made good points in the discussion, your points weren't so good. Saying your argument is poor is calling a spade, a spade. You can't demand someone leave a discussion just because your feathers are ruffled. There's nothing more to be done here. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2013 (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.

Matej1234

I am reporting User:Matej1234 for continued and persistent removal of the template:no footnotes against consensus and policy beyond repeated requests made to him via his talk page for him not to do so. Requests for him to cease this type of anti-encylopaedia building behaviour have been made by various editors:

• 11 Dec
• 29 Dec
• 23 Jan
• 17 Feb (first)
• 17 Feb (second)
• 17 Feb (third)

But he continues to remove templates, for example with this recent edit, as well as unilaterally changing mdy formats to dmy, which he has also been asked to desist from doing on at least two occasions: first, second, as we can see by an edit he performed today. He does not provide edit summaries and rarely communicates on user talk pages, so I feel administrator intervention is a suitable next step in this case. Thanks, C679 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified Matej1234 of this discussion. I have now done that. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, Cloudz679 did notify Matej1234. GiantSnowman 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have issued the editor in question with a final warning - if they continue to remove valid maintenance tags without explanation I will block. GiantSnowman 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  On that note, this version would certainly not need any footnotes. Footnotes and inline references are required for contentious material or possibly negative additions to biographies of living persons. But referencing a stub of two sentences with footnotes would be overkill, so I don't see a problem with that particular edit by Matej. His lack of response to the warnings and requests to stop this type of editing though is in fact a problem. Matej should really consider if removing any maintenance templates from an article is justified. As to dmy vs mdy, this requires as well a case-by-case analysis of the article. WP:MOSDATE gives advice about using dates in articles with strong national ties to a topic and also about "retaining the existing format". Changing the date format of an article is not desirable unless the subject has strong national ties to either the UK or the US that would justify using the relevant local date format. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Vance Thomas picture vandalism

Some guys uploaded some prank pictures to Vance Thomas and they keep switching his bio image over and over again. The pictures do not depict Thomas, but a doppelganger. Other pictures are just silly and making fun of Thomas. Can an admin have a look and fix this mess? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protected, the worst of the culprits warned, some improperly sourced stuff removed, the prank photos nominated for deletion on Commons. Did I miss anything? Bencherlite^Talk 11:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Matej1234

I am reporting User:Matej1234 for continued and persistent removal of the template:no footnotes against consensus and policy beyond repeated requests made to him via his talk page for him not to do so. Requests for him to cease this type of anti-encylopaedia building behaviour have been made by various editors:

• 11 Dec
• 29 Dec
• 23 Jan
• 17 Feb (first)
• 17 Feb (second)
• 17 Feb (third)

But he continues to remove templates, for example with this recent edit, as well as unilaterally changing mdy formats to dmy, which he has also been asked to desist from doing on at least two occasions: first, second, as we can see by an edit he performed today. He does not provide edit summaries and rarely communicates on user talk pages, so I feel administrator intervention is a suitable next step in this case. Thanks, C679 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You should have notified Matej1234 of this discussion. I have now done that. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, Cloudz679 did notify Matej1234. GiantSnowman 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have issued the editor in question with a final warning - if they continue to remove valid maintenance tags without explanation I will block. GiantSnowman 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  On that note, this version would certainly not need any footnotes. Footnotes and inline references are required for contentious material or possibly negative additions to biographies of living persons. But referencing a stub of two sentences with footnotes would be overkill, so I don't see a problem with that particular edit by Matej. His lack of response to the warnings and requests to stop this type of editing though is in fact a problem. Matej should really consider if removing any maintenance templates from an article is justified. As to dmy vs mdy, this requires as well a case-by-case analysis of the article. WP:MOSDATE gives advice about using dates in articles with strong national ties to a topic and also about "retaining the existing format". Changing the date format of an article is not desirable unless the subject has strong national ties to either the UK or the US that would justify using the relevant local date format. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Vance Thomas picture vandalism

Some guys uploaded some prank pictures to Vance Thomas and they keep switching his bio image over and over again. The pictures do not depict Thomas, but a doppelganger. Other pictures are just silly and making fun of Thomas. Can an admin have a look and fix this mess? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protected, the worst of the culprits warned, some improperly sourced stuff removed, the prank photos nominated for deletion on Commons. Did I miss anything? Bencherlite^Talk 11:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.

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.

---

What can be done about this IP editor. He is obviosuly a sockpuppet and is causing me a lot of trouble. He insists on leaving his changes in place before we discuss. He can't be banned, because he is using a dynamic IP address (a different address from Vodaphone appears to be allocated to him every time he logs on), yet he is threatening me with 3RR action.

• User:212.183.140.3 (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
• User:212.183.140.4 (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
• User:212.183.140.5 (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
• User:212.183.140.38 (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
• User:212.183.128.129 (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
• User:212.183.128.192 (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
• User:212.183.128.207 (12 February 2013 - 11:07 & 13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38 & 15 February 2013 22:32 to 23:02)
• User:212.183.128.211 (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
• User:212.183.128.236 (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
• User:212.183.128.242 (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)

BTW, I can't inform this editor that I have placed this message as he is an editor of No fixed abode. For the record, Vodaphone uses IP addresses 212.183.*.*, giving a potential of about 64,000 addresses. The above evidence suggests that Vodaphone uses addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.* for its mobile customers, giving 510 addresses. Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Backstory is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto. Garamond Lethet
  c 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • {{Checkuser needed}} Interesting. Same address range being used in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. We need a checkuser to make sure that we can implement rangeblocks without causing too much collateral damage.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If the IP range is relatively narrow (i.e. blocks of /16) and is hitting articles where there is likely to be some consistent categories, this could possibly be dealt with via an Edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@Martinvl: what exactly is the disruption that you allege here, because a cursory glance at recent edits made by some of the IPs you listed above doesn't reveal anything untoward, and using an ISP that randomly assigns IP addresses to customers from a whole range, even during one virtual session, cannot be described as such.

Also, can you show evidence that 212.183 accounts have been used to disrupt articles from each of the categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England" that you listed, because again, I see none.

I am interested because I too often edit from a 212.183 account, and I am surprised that your complaint has been accepted without any supporting evidence. 212.183.128.241 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'Hackneyhound block evasion' is the issue at hand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or should that be Factocop? Joking aside, the Hackneyhound account is notorious for using Vodafone IPs as socks. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The choice of material suggests that this is User:DeFacto, who has a history of disruption, pushing his own anti-metric point of view regardless of consensus. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The other 212.183 editor asked for evidence of disruption at categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England". I take it that you do not have any, or you would have presented it. You are wasting everyone's time with your smokescreen accusations, and your agenda is very transparent. Now put up or shut up. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Block evasion is disruption. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• DeFacto and Factocop... those names are very, very coincidental... and I don't believe in coincidences. They're using the same IPs, it seems, and have very, very similar names... Lukeno94 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to game the anti-edit-warring rules

Editor User:Martinvl, an editor with a history of edit warring (see his talkpage!) and with 2 edit warring blocks under his belt, and who has been accused of gaming the system before to push metrication into articles, particularly articles related to the Falkland Islands, now seems to have decided for himself that the opinions of IP editors are worthless. See his edit summary on this edit where he says "Undid revision ... Reinstated text as per consensus of registered editors." That is totally unacceptable.

This seems to be part of an organised campaign to push pro-metrication POV into this and other articles too (see International System of Units where is is under a 3RR warning), despite there not being reliable sources which support it. In Metric system he is trying to apply fake dates to CIA data and then use a USENET Newsgroup post to support his POV that the CIA is wrong. Can someone please remind him that consensus includes IP users and that WP:OR and WP:VER apply in all cases, even if he and another registered user disagree. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• As you are on a variable IP, that comment makes sense - it's impossible to tell whether a whole load of Vodafone IPs are one person without technical data or similar things. If you're a legitimate user with nothing to hide, why not start an account to get rid of the variable IP issue? For what it's worth, I agree with 2007 being correct, having looked at the information - it's the original date. It most definitely does not fall under WP:OR. Also, questions such as "How long have you been editing Wikipedia Martinvl?" are totally irrelevant to a discussion, and if you checked out his contributions, you could answer that yourself. Martinvl is not the only editor to disagree with you, and I see no editors directly supporting you. As far as I can see, it's you that started the edit war, not him. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, in this case. But there are certainly issues in the way Martinvl deals with these situations and with the topic as a whole. I can think of several cases in my experience where his arguments and conduct have fallen very clearly the wrong side of WP:GAME, with the effect of inappropriately pushing articles to a more pro-metric position. An example would be a few months back when he insisted that geography is a science and therefore that we're not allowed to use miles (including in brackets) in any geographical context on any part of Wikipedia. Such an interpretation is only plausible based on a very selective reading of WP:UNITS, such as to override the clear intentions of that guideline. Kahastok talk 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some responses:

@Kahastok: This is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote and I demand a retraction. My text was I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@General: This edit is indicative that the editor in question has something to hide. Why else would he blank out the advice to editors who find th4emselves being harrassed from this address?

Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That edit was probably nothing more than a legitimate clearing of messages meant for previous users of that IP. Dynamic IPs are allocated randomly, so messages go out of date very quickly. Clearing them is good practice in my book. I fear mischievous motives or poor judgement led to those accusatory comments. 212.183.140.59 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if I accept everything you say, what you quote is a clear attempt to game the system. The statement:

Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science... the should, in theory, be using SI only

is false. And given quite how much time you've spent dealing with this topic, including in discussion at WT:MOSNUM it is inconceivable that you did not and do not know that it is false. It is a clear attempt to, in the words of WP:GAME, force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. And it is entirely typical of your editing style in the area of units of measure.

Note, incidentally, that when Martin refers to "changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections", this refers to a revert of Martin's original edit to metricate the article (which moved the article from a WP:UNITS-preferred style to a less favoured style). My view is that Martin should have long-since been topic banned from all units of measure related to the UK - or at least the Falklands - because his total inability to deal with the subject neutrally has caused enormous damage to our coverage of the topic. In the Falklands sphere, I think it's fair to suggest that the damage done has been worse than everything that we have seen from Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. Kahastok talk 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• This content battle belongs on WP:LAME. Just have both SI and imperial units there, that's a good compromise and should keep everyone happy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we have a consensus compromise that all editors (including Martin) signed up to. If Martin would leave it be there would be no problem.

But my point isn't so much to bring up that dispute - I could have pointed out numerous other instances - it's to flag up the fact that this is an editor who routinely violates WP:GAME and it's unsurprising that he might have done so in this case. Kahastok talk 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I quite often cannot edit because a range of IPs from my mobile ISP provider have been blocked. Reconnecting a few times usually gives me a fresh IP. Thus, it's weird that range blocks are used. They don't prevent vandals; they do prevent good faith editors. 31.126.220.151 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you're a good-faith editor, with a clean past, why not create an account to sort out that issue? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2013 (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 refuses to NOINDEX their collection of WP:FAKEARTICLEs kept in their userspace

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

I ran across a collection of articles on medieval portolan charts being kept in this user's userspace here: User:Portolanero. At first I thought they were the users 'work in progress' destined to be mainspace contributions. However after closer examination I see they largely ignore Wikipedia core policies such as WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX etc. and appear to fall under WP:FAKEARTICLE. At least one off-wiki site refers to the Portolanero user pages as a "personal research site"[80] .

My attempts to discuss the issue of NOINDEXING on their Talk page were not successful. The user has declared they "will not accept a NOINDEX". [81]

They have also reverted attempts to NOINDEX their userpages [82], [83]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they are using Wikipedia as a free webhost. --ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And being deliberately evasive when informed that the material they post here is intended to be modified by anyone. If any of their userspace articles are of any value to the project, in whole or in part, they should be moved to article space and cleaned up to remove the original research and editorializing. Those that aren't should be deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience: list of subpages. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they are indeed fake articles, I'd suggest taking them to WP:MFD. - SudoGhost 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that for some time - this attitude convinces me it's the best option. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I readded the noindex to one article and wish you good luck with this editor. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like a classic example of fake articles. Contrary to policies, and the user does not appear willing to discuss. The "articles" should be deleted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know by user LuckyLouie Where is the group that can decide to enforce "noindex"? and take the discussion there. I considered my talkpage not appropriate. He suggested "miscellany for deletion" but now opened here. Is this here the formal place to discuss "noindex" or deletion of my pages? -- Portolanero (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead.Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say your talk page would have been the place to notify you of the NOINDEX issue. This is a place to notify admins of problems that might require intervention, such as a user who apparently takes Wikipedia as his personal webhost in violation of WP:NOT and insists that his fake articles be indexed by search engines - to what purpose? The admins have the tools necessary to implement whatever the community decides is appropriate. The place to discuss deletion of your pages is WP:MFD, and it seems likely that your pages will end up there soon. Huon (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup .. by the time it's come here, it's because you have failed to act as requested when it comes to policy-compliance ... in this case, NOINDEX. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Is there ever a reason why userspace pages should be searchable outside WP? It seems to me that the whole namespace should automatically/unchangeably be __NOINDEX__. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And talk pages - BLP alone should mandate that userspace and talkpages of articles and users should not be indexed. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We just gonna yak about this all day or what? Here ya go: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Portolanero/subpages‎ NE Ent 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I explained in 2011 at the "Portolan chart" talk page here the purpose of my pages:

I'm a specialist on early portolan charts. "One of the world's greatest and most enduring mysteries" like the Washington Post wrote May 22, 2010. On my user page I created several subpages that explain and discuss a lot of issues around portolans. Unique rare images and graphics are presented. Some published for the first time. I came from the German language tradition of portolan research. That is more focused on the scientific or engineering aspects, on mathematic and cartometric analysis. It traditionally suggests a Roman or Greek time origin. The present English language tradition is less mathematical and suggests a sole medieval origin. My pages offer most English speakers for the first time the cartometric arguments about the portolans. Beginners should first read "What is unsolved about portolans? The Problem of the Portolan Charts". The pages are with lot of explanations and therefore not intended to be direct copied in the article space. Rather someone with interest on the subject and Wikipedia experience should decide what may be appropriate here. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to give interested WP and Google users a way to get information on the more science based Swiss/German school of portolan research. I did it on WP because I had the experience only here to find highly capable people who can handle such stuff and even may have new information. I wanted to support some WP articles and help to further advance the knowledge on this rarely known topic.

There are now not enough WP users aware of portolans that this could start yet. But I hope by Google to get people to work on the WP articles and my pages shall support it. I have good relations to people of English language school on portolans. They would rightly see it as an affront if a proponent of the Swiss/German school took over the English WP article. So I have to abstain on edits there.

Please take a look what unique material I spent for WP. All map images on my portolan pages are uploaded by me. There were never published elsewhere yet. This or this are just two images that cost a lot of money to create. So far the argument that I misused WP as cheap web hoster. -- Portolanero (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that these pages took a lot of time and effort to create, but right away you come to the core of the issue - an editor's userpages are emphatically not the place "...to give WP and Google users a way to get information" on anything. If you intend to publish this material, great - good luck to you. But it can't be published on Wikipedia first. Look at it from the other side of things - if we accepted for publication whatever a user put onto his or her userpages, then anyone could post anything and then rely on it for articles or the like. Your material may well be accurate and informative, but other editors' may not be. That's why we require material published on Wikipedia to be backed by reliable sources - and that it be verifiable. We also require pages in the userspace to either be compliant with most policies or in forms and on subjects that could, with editing, be reasonably expected to comply at some point. However intricate and detailed, your original work is just that - original research - and it cannot be used on Wikipedia. I know that's not the answer you're looking for, but it is what it is. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

About 80% is from reliable book sources in English and German language and well referenced, so verifiable. The remainder is my "OR" and that by policy is allowed on userpages. The pages shall help to improve the WP article and that they can do. -- Portolanero (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is to improve existing or future pages, then why would you not noindex the pages? We don't publish Original Research here, and not noindexing these pages does precisely that - which is why this came forward to ANI in the first place. If you want this material to be seen on Google and Bing and so forth, you need to find another website. If you intend it for our use in improving articles here, then you need to noindex the pages. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't all of this be ported over to Wikia? You could create your own site there, portolan.wikia.com or whatever you want to name it. Same or similar mediawiki, the conversion effort should be minimal. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Was just going to suggest that, or Wikkii. NE Ent 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Seems Portolanero has some WP:OWN which is weighing on his judgment about the appropriateness of the subpages. If he had been more cooperative about posting {{userdraft}} or {{noindex}} templates, especially after the need for them had been explained, he would not be in this discussion. (Such a simple solution was available, but he spurned it.) 2. This discussion may be moot in that a consensus seems to be developing that the subpages be deleted. 3. With these thoughts in mind, I suggest we close this discussion. IMO, there is no need to take administrative action as to Portolanero himself and the MfD will resolve the subpage issue. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus may be that the pages are inappropriate for our user namespace, but the world won't explode if we hold onto them until such point as Portolanero can get himself set up at Wikia, so long as that's what he's going to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar content appears to be more coherently conveyed at User:Walrasiad/Maps - which was also being cited on the web as a "research site" and lacking any NOINDEX until moments ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I advise Portolano to make copies of the source code of all his articles in his hard disk. He can use Notepad, Microsoft Windows, OpenOffice or LibreOffice. This way he can restore them very easily in others wikis. If they get deleted, he will have to email an admin to get a copy of the source code. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I should add that Portolanero's idea of reliable sources is not one I share, and that at least some of his material is fringe. For instance, User:Portolanero/The Maps of King Arthur which is something that we'd never allow as an article. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole debate came up after I asked Dougweller here why the book by Kare Prytz (Westward before Columbus, Oslo 1991) was not a reliable source. I got no reply. I personally confirmed Prytz claim there and recently found the two others mentioned in older scholarly books too. I suspect Dougweller only read the WP entry on Kare Prytz where his novels are mentioned. This book was no novel but had referenced and verifiable sources I used. I would like to know on what his "no RS" accusation is based.

Further, by WP policy "Most community policies... will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)" the mentioned "original research" should be no problem. My pages have only about 20% "OR" in total. All other is well referenced and verifiable. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the articles in your userspace is not an option. You can keep them there while you're still improving them and making them suitable for inclusion, but in the long term, one of several things will happen:

1. The articles will be moved to article namespace. They will be subject to edits by other editors and deletion if appropriate
2. The articles will be moved to another site (wikia for example, per above), and deleted from wikipedia's servers
3. The articles will be deleted, and not recreated anywhere on wikipedia unless they are suitable for inclusion

Obviously option number three isn't very appealing, so it's your responsibility to work the articles up to our standards, or if you think it's impossible, then to move the articles to another site before they are deleted.

You have expressed the belief that your userspace does not need to conform to content policies. This is not true. In general, user pages, talk pages, and subpages do not have to follow those rules, but when a subpage is an article draft, then it must work towards article standards and eventually be moved to mainspace, or risk deletion as a FAKEARTICLE.

These are the facts. You can try to ignore them all you want, but it will only result in the deletion of your work, which isn't the best thing for anybody. Sincerely, Rutebega (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Portolanero, you cannot selective pick which policies to apply to your user page, none of us can. If one applies, then all of them must apply. Your subpages, as long as they exist in your userspace, may contain OR but then it runs afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST as you have been told before. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Thumperward's 10:38 comment .. (and others). — Ched :  ?  15:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages on Google

A quick Google search[84] found [85] and [86] and [87]. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Section changed from Lv2 to Lv3 heading, relates to previous section.

It would be helpful if you could explain why this is an issue requiring administrator attention, as it's not obvious to me. Thanks. —Rutebega (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Probably meant an an amendment to the section above.--Auric talk 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I might politely suggest a level 3 heading then. I read noticeboards from the bottom up, and no context was given in OP. Anyway, there's no consensus that user talk pages need to be noindexed, so Dougweller's rationale still isn't quite clear. Not to be patronizing, but ANI threads are typically accompanied by some kind of request for input or action, or an obvious grievance to be addressed, and I'm not seeing one. Rutebega (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)  Done. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I somehow thought talk pages (but not userpages) weren't indexed by default? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, user talk pages aren't meant to be indexed, but search engines work in mysterious ways. Graham87 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing a disallow for User_talk in the robot.txt file -- is there supposed to be one? NE Ent 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't have any technical knowledge of this, but as an aside, I noted that Dougweller's talk page doesn't show up in search results, which I attribute to the fact that his userpage is noindexed. In short, my hypothesis is that talk pages are indexed only when their corresponding user pages are indexed, for reasons unknown. And clearly talk pages are not automatically noindexed. Whether they were ever meant to be I have no idea; I read an RFC about noindexing user and user talk pages, but it failed. —Rutebega (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The only talk pages that I'm aware of that aren't indexed are BLP talk pages, since Template:BLP and Template:WikiProject Biography include the noindex magicword as part of the template. - SudoGhost 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:NOINDEX#Namespace_control says "On English Wikipedia the entire user talk: namespace is automatically noindexed via a software setting" NE Ent 17:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Creepy barnstars from User:Horrifico

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 believe this user is indefed for vandalism and sockpuppetry. They are are posting barnstars to several user's talk pages with the rather creepy message: "Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life!" Maybe their IP is blocked, but not their user account. - MrX 20:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure they're not blocked at present. This is odd behaviour, but it's not really harming anyone, and it's not "creepy", just plain weird. Don't really see any need for administrative action, other than to perhaps notify them that Wikipedia isn't a trolling site. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life!" is Horrifico's signature. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this sockpuppetry investigation it seems likely that Horrifico is a sock of indef-blocked User:Raulseixas (or vice versa). Since Raulseixas was indef-blocked after Horrifico had his own indef-block lifted and since, at the time Raulseixas was blocked, the connection between him and Horrifico was not established, it might be argued that Horrifico too should be indef-blocked, though he currently indeed is not. Huon (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not rauleseixas though. I am NOT RAULSEIXAS.... I didn't know the rules, I have ADHD, PDD-NOS, OCPD, and Sensory Integration Disorder. I have a hard time controling myself. He, however, has no disorders and knows the rules. The only person I was ever affillated with is Satipo, and that was because I was immature. This IP address belongs to a group of public library computers with the same IP address. Anybody can register an account there and vandalize a page, and I suffer for it. My days of vandalism are done. If he comes to that public library or somebody who is a random person decides to mock Raulseixas and create a fake account or he decides to use another IP address that is public and get somebody else banned, I get the blame because I come to the library frequently. The checkuser in this case isn't accurate, it is not available in this situation. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is going to sound harsh, and I apologize in advance, but if you cannot control yourself at all, which appears to be the case, you may be better off elsewhere. Misbehaving on Wikipedia will only bring extra problems for yourself, and you probably wouldn't be able to cope with that. I'm not going to comment on the SPI stuff, I've not looked at it. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• But I am not Raulseixas. I can control myself now. I am not Raulseixas though. --Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just stop with the barnstars, okay? NE Ent 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is seven days old and not particularly relevant to the issue of the Barnstars.NE Ent 22:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I've overreacted, and perhaps Horrifico is just not very mature, but as Beyond My Ken pointed out, this is not therapy and if Horrifico can't control their impulses, they should be shown the door. - MrX 22:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I just double checked, and it is unambiguously  Confirmed from both a technical standpoint and from a behavioral look that the following accounts are one and the same:

• Horrifico (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ralew (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Raueseixas1234567890 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gajikgfadgklgahkag (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It's very unlikely that Horrifico is Raulseixas, rather, this appears to be an impersonation attempt. Since Ralew was created after his warning for doing this kind of stuff, I have indeffed Horrifico. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2013 (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.

Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus

I allege that at Talk:Jung_Myung_Seok#Protection_about_to_expire Macarthur is going beyond mere ignorance of Wikipedia policy and is actively ignoring parts of a discussion he doesn't like and distorting policy so that he can go on doing his favorite thing, that is, inserting long quotations in the biography of a cult leader from websites linked to the cult (providence-trial.com) and removing very important material he dislikes, cited to dozens of good references. He is simply whitewashing the article in favor of a convicted rapist who spent 9 years on the run from multiple national police organizations, and I recommend he be banned from editing this article and the related one about the cult Providence. Shii (tock) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way I am pretty much at my limit for dealing with someone with this much bad faith. Endless references have been provided by me and others, and he replies basically pretending that he hasn't seen them and that the article should stay the way he wants it, while admins stand watch and do nothing. Shii (tock) 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that Macauthor's edits here do not seem to serve the purpose of improving the article. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked Macauthor 48 hours for rather blatant tendentious editing, especially for continuing to insert clearly tendentious material in the article just after a protection (also caused by his edit-warring) expired a couple of days ago. Blocks should escalate quickly if he continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Again, I invite any admin with spare time to keep a close eye on this discussion and confirm for themselves what this guy is doing. Shii (tock) 01:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Integrity (band) and User:Dwid hellion

User:Dwid hellion has a long-term history of blanking the majority of the content from the article Integrity (band) dating back to 2007.[88][89][90][91][92][93] This user's name (Dwid is the name of the band's vocalist) and most recent edit ("The band does not wish to be featured nor misrepresented on this website.") suggests a strong conflict of interest. His talk page is full of warnings for this issue dating back to 2009, but I do not see any further action on the matter. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted and blocked for 36 hours for disruption. Perhaps the article can be made a bit more palatable in the meantime--the best defense against such persistent blanking is to improve the article so there's something decent to revert back to. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Archetypex07

Archetypex07 (talk · contribs) is an editor with a very limited understanding of Wikipedia and a very obvious nationalistic agenda. The editor has been edit warring on this article in order to keep their unsourced and completely erronous version of the etymology of the word which they introduced back in June 2012. The editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page, but each and everytime it has involved some heavy refactoring of previous comments: 1, 2, 3, 4. The comments themselves are largely incoherent, chauvinistic and in general bad faith, and reveals a complete lack of acknowledgement of basic principles of Wikipedia like WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF. The editor seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, and obviously sees Wikipedia as a battleground for some kind of race war.

My recommendation would be that Archetypex07 is indeffed as being an obvious negative asset to the project. But I am open to suggestions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I notified the editor of this discussion, this was their response. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pity nobody has warned Archetypex07 before about 3RR on his page (I just did), or he would certainly be blocked for edit warring by now. Going straight to indef for a user with a previously clean block log may be a little headlong, though I do see it may come to that. Mathsci just removed A's post to this thread, understandably, I suppose, but on the other hand the post was quite illustrative of the problem. Please only remove vandalism on this board, Mathsci — not attempts to discuss, however misguided. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC). Adding: I do agree that A's change of the section title was in fact vandalism. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

He made those changes twice and two different editors reverted them. Changing the title and adding various personal attacks just afterwards was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly was. That's why I thought it illustrative. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I've blocked Archetypex07 for 24 hours for edit-warring and disruptive editing. The repeated reverts, attacks on other editors, and allegations of collusion for anyone who disagreed with them needed to stop. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring is a perfectly valid reason for reverting. And I did in fact warn the user about 3RR previously. Remember that it is always useful to check the history of a talk page, especially when it concerns users that are prone to deleting notices. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What bad thing has occurred because the first 3rr warning was overlooked? NE Ent 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on this right after his request for unblock was declined, I extended the block indefinitely. Single purpose account clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead promote some kind of radical race agenda. Secret ^account 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism IP

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.

---

FYI — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.242.141.26 looks like a vandalism IP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That IP is barely active, one edit today, was a hidden can't see comment. WP:AIV exists for a reason, no need to block for now. Secret ^account 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility and not bureaucracy exist for better reasons. It's preferable to simply say "Please use X in the future," where X is AIV, 3rr, uaa, etc. NE Ent 03:13, 20 February 2013 (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.

Frietjes going rogue?

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.

---

Frietjes (talk · contribs) has changed {{sms}} into {{hs}} for a whole list [94]. When I noted on his talkpage he was being premature [95], I was deleted quickly [96]. But of course, there are alternatives and one should be open to talks [97]. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

see WP:BLANKING and I am not a he, but I'm used to the assumption. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Notified: [98] -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

[99] weird, Frietjes. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

it's weird that I am used to people assuming that I am male? okay, would you rather I said it was sexist to refer to me as male? or how about if I said that calling me stupid was an attack? let's try be civil here. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

AGF, DePiep. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is weird you [Frietjes] edited backward. In time. You could have written below.

The point is you edited by premature conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Best to use singular they if referring to another editor.
• Best to set gender in Special:Preferences if one wants to other editors to know -- {{gender|Frietjes}} says 'she". NE Ent 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Other issues notwithstanding, I agree it is generally not a good idea to do these kinds of edits before the discussion is closed properly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvidrim, so far you are the only one reacting to the point. I can add: even after a merge conclusion, these edits are not needed because Redirects are cheap. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Based on this thread and a few other randomly selected diffs from Special:Contributions/DePiep, he may not be competent enough in the English language to contribute to an English language encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • DePiep's tendency to personalise and dramatise minor disputes is not necessarily tied to his command of the English language. I'd hope that the former could be resolved amicably. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear trolls. I was not just hoping, but even trying, as the 2nd diff shows. It was met by the 3rd diff. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Using they or xe as a singular pronoun, as advised here, is not English. We do not use that in the encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The original warning was rude, IMO.
(tangent) Singular they is, indeed, English, and in wide use, per the article. I agree it has difficulties, but WP:MOSR § Gender-neutral language says that there has been no consensus on its use in WP articles, which certainly means its acceptable in the less formal nature of talk pages.
I felt the same way as Nathan Johnson when trying to understand DePiep's writing, particularly in this thread. However, competency might not be the issue. @DePiep: It seems like you sometimes construct sentences in an intentional effort to seem "clever", use words in less-common ways, or use not enough words to disambiguate your meaning; which is fun in certain limited circumstances, but not respectful of your audience when the goal is to communicate efficiently and effectively. JMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Troll feeding troll: circular trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I sincerely doubt there's a "rogue editor" here. To be honest, even if Frietjes has jumped the gun, this AN/I seems completely over the top. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Jumped the gun twice: 1. premature, 2. even when merged, no edit was needed (R is cheap). And to note: I started this ANI when Frietjes deleted my talk opening. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with deleting a talk page comment - at least you know he's seen it. This ANI was still premature - if anything, it's a content dispute and therefore in the wrong place entirely. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2013 (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:Danjel's misuse of active versus retired status etc

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.

---

Some prior discussions about User:Danjel at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal: User:Danjel
• Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors (still ongoing)

Of great concern is User:Danjel's misuse of the {{retired}} template, see his user page at User:Danjel, as well as his flouting of WP:NOSHARING see Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors. While he opened an RFC against another user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche on January 15, 2013 that has still not been closed. In spite of placing the "retired" template on his user and talk pages [100] on February 16, 2013, yet nevertheless he has kept up making comments as he sees fit utterly confusing other editors. This abuse of the "retired" template is causing confusion and is a violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT as Danjel flits in and out of discussions as he sees fit, violating WP:AGF [101]; violating WP:VANDAL [102] and where his illegal deletion is rightfully reverted by another editor [103], where he is called on his abuse and misuse of the "retired" template that even allows him to avoid censure for his mounting violations, especially of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that amounts to game of smoke and mirrors, while a RFC that he launched remains open and he acts either "retired" and "active" at the same time making it impossible to communicate with him or to take hims seriously at all. Admins are requested to intervene and either block him or ensure that he makes it known that he is as active as any other editor who is busy with other things and if he is truly "retired" not to misuse the {{retired}} template as a tool in his ongoing battles with eitors who do not share his WP:POV. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• The user has been notified, see User talk:Danjel#ANI. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Couple of points: 1) It looks like several people have commented on the Epeefleche RfC, so I don't think Danjel's retirement is grounds to close it. 2) He's made a grand total of four edits since placing the retirement templates. 3) I'm not aware that being nominally "retired" forbids you from editing; where is the rule that states this? Reyk _YO! 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Iuno... I don't think there's a rule or policy on this. You can make up a box saying you're the Emperor of Mongolia or whatnhot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed if this was just some innocuous case then hey no big deal, but this is taking place in the context of some pretty serious differences of opinion where Danjel has and is facing major criticism in other situations, as well as still maintaning a RFC against another user, and all of a sudden hey presto, now you see him, now you don't. Either he stands still and we can all be on the same page, or we tell him that no one can keep up with a user that's acting like an "invisible man" where in effect he is creating and very craftily violating WP:SOCK within using or not using his own user name that becomes either "retired" or "active" as he tries to evade criticism. There was stuff on his original user page that he requested be blanked (his user page history is gone, now [104] that he's plonked down the "retired" template in effect destroyed an important record that relates to his admitted violations of WP:SHARE and WP:ROLE), now he has resorted to being "retired" but now his strategy is that he flits in and out to make attacks and edits. It's started and needs to be nipped in the bud. IZAK (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he says he's retired, close all threads he's started. Easy, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another point of concern here is that a closing sysop at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche (the RFC that Danjel started a month before he "retired"), should NOT reach the conclusion, that since Danjel has retired, there is no longer any concern about his behavior as cited above. Danjel can easily come back the day after the close of the RfC or vanish and reappear as someone else. Retirement means zero in this context. The RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche needs a close that is as strong as if Danjel were still active, and the closing admin should be fully justified in closing and should not have a reason to say "no reason to boomerang and no reason to interaction ban him, as he is retired". That would be handing Danjel a "victory and prize for his maneuverings that may happen. Thus, the RFC should be ended forthwith because consensus is clear, and the RFC has continued for over a month. The nominator Danjel as of a few days ago is no longer active on WP, but of course he can "un-retire" tomorrow, therefore the consensus for either a full block or at least an interaction ban on him interacting with User Epeefleche (talk · contribs) is absolutely necessary. IZAK (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

Well... I think you misunderstand the power of RfCs... banning and other sanctions are usually not the outcome. As far as I know, somebody writes a summary for future reference, and then it goes to ArbCom or some other board... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I know full well that RFCs do not lead to bannings. That is not what the concern is here. The concern is about violations by User Danejel (talk · contribs) of WP:SHARE; WP:ROLE; WP:SOCK and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT and undermining the enire fabric of WP:CONSENSUS, and how would anyone "classify" misuse of the {{retired}} template to avoid sanctions and zig and zag without facing the consequences. Either he is here or he is not. Either he is with us or he is not. Either he is a normal editor or he is not. This is obviously a grey zone that the offending user is attempting to leverage to his own advantage in his disputes, actually it's more like a vendetta against another user. There is an over-all pattern that's causing havoc any time this user enters the fray. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the best course of action is to wait for the RfC to be closed, then come back here when problems continue. You've made your point here and it's on record. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User: Nishidani has the retired or semi-retired template on his user page for years and edits on a daily basis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, User Nishidani (talk · contribs) is more honest and uses the {{semi-retired}} template and it quite accurately states "This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.". IZAK (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IZAK: you're getting so shrill that you can't even spell my name. While you've said that I'm in breach of every policy and guideline up to and including WP:KITCHENSINK, you're yet to actually provide any evidence of it. So I'll respond to the actual substantive ones:

1. Your contention that I was using User:MrJuddsStudents as a form of meatpuppetry is and was completely unfounded. There is absolutely no basis for your complaint. It was raised by one of your allies as a means of harassment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, at which the result was that there was nothing wrong happening, that this was likely an area where WP:IAR should apply, and that we should all wait for the RFC (which you've linked above).
2. No, I'm not avoiding sanctions. In fact, every single time you and other friends of Epeefleche has raised the possibilities of sanctions, there has either been no result and ignored as wikidrama, or it has been turned down because there's no substance to your complaints.
3. Yep, I'm retired. It's exactly this sort of wikidrama bullshit that has made me decide to look elsewhere. Presumably you'd prefer if I edited as an IP? It's been pointed out above that there is no policy that says that I can't edit while "retired", and, yet... You still continue.
4. Yep, I've also had my userpage, and all the subpages under my username deleted. Again, show me where the policy is that says that I can't?
5. As for battleground, I'm not the one talking about blocks and bans and "victor[ies] and prize[s]". But I suppose it all serves the greater good of avoiding any criticism whatsoever.

As for you... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• This thread doesn't belong here. So what that Danjel has a retired template on his talk page, and has made a small number of edits since he placed it there? You can announce your retirement, stay for a bit to tie up any loose ends, and even retired people occasionally pop back into their old jobs to help out once in a while. Suggest either WP:BOOMERANG or just closing this trolling thread. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (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.

Something's going on and I can't fix it

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

Please see here ASAP. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Was a problem with Template:Cite WS. Taken care of by Metropolitan90. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:34, 20 February 2013 (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:Xerographica

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.

---

Reason: Continuing WP:NPA, WP:POINTy and non-good faith comments despite repeated messages and warnings: Start of recent history:

Diffs and extended history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[105] – Starting point of edits following block for NPA. Instituted 8 January and ended 22 January: Xerographica's remarks: (Notes: Words in bold was made in AfD comments. (In one instance he did a bold/all caps SHOUT.) Xerographica frequently uses ellipsis (...) in comments, but not to signify removed wording (I read them as pauses). Ellipsis added by me (as omitted material) are bracketed thus [...].) 22 January [106] – "If you don't understand ... you have not shared a single concern...." In response to my remarks about editing behavior. 23 January [107] – "Here's my problem. Where are your bricks? Where are ANY of your bricks? You removed all my bricks [...] ...but then you never added any of your own. How is that a "good or helpful" method of building an encyclopedia? Show me how to build an encyclopedia [...]. Don't just talk about building an encyclopedia...for once just do it. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of giving any weight to your feedback." In response about my remarks about building WP. [108] – "Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry?" In response to User:Morphh's remarks about the Tax article. [109] – "Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... Have you read through all the reliable sources?" In response to my remarks about off-topic nature of added material. [110] – "Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic." A reply to Morphh's comment about reading/glancing at material. [111] – "If you want to "balance" this article then DIY and BUILD a criticism section. [In response to me; then:] "SPECIFICO, yes...because Brandeis and DeVito were making the same exact argument as a Nobel Prize winning economist. If you insist on editing economic entries...then why not concentrate on reading reliable economic sources for once?" In response to SPECIFICO. [112] – "Like I said on my talk page, once I see evidence of Rich actually building the encyclopedia...as in building actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is...then, and only then, will I consider giving any weight to his words." And, "[...] If you, for once, actually look through the reliable sources, then you will find the expressions "other people's money" and "four ways to spend money"...and perhaps a few more. But because Wikipedia is not a dictionary...the focus of this entry is the concept that the reliable sources discuss. So please focus on what the reliable sources have to say about the CONCEPT and NOT THE TERM ITSELF." Both remarks directed to SPECIFICO. (A follow-up remark by Xerographica in this thread is here: [113].) [114] – "Strongly agree. It's nice to assume good faith...but having to constantly clean up after editors who do not understand the concepts that they are editing is a colossal waste of time/energy." A response in a CIR discussion. [115] – "Here's a bit of insight. Chances are pretty good that the passage came from the internet. So just click and drag your cursor over some of the text in order to highlight it, right click on the highlighted text and then click "Search Google for..."." In response to SPECIFICO's remark about no source for a quote.' January 24 [116] – "Rich, why would it be better handled in the theory of taxation? You're the one engaging in disruptive editing by engaging in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS. If you dispute any of the content then please create a section and share your concerns. We will discuss the content problems like reasonable editors. You're not assuming good faith by implying that I've added content that is not based on RS." In response to my remark about quotefarming. [117] – "I'm engaging in disruptive behavior by adding content that is supported by RS? It's not disruptive when you engage in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I WAS the one who was headed towards an unpleasant outcome while you, the person who actually IS engaging in disruptive behavior, suffered absolutely no negative consequences." In response to SPECIFICIO's remarks about disruptive editing. [118] – "Rich, you added tags which indicate that certain sections may contain original research. I know that the content is based on RS. My question is...why do you not know that? Have you read the RS?" A further response (labeled as a new section) to my remarks about quotefarming. [119] – "You're telling me that I'm doing it wrong...but can you give me a single example of where you've done it right? If you genuinely want to improve this article...then why don't you just do so? Build the article rather than simply tear it down. Improve the article. Make it better. Add more value for readers. But that would require reading numerous reliable sources. So yes, the issue really IS whether you have read the reliable sources. Tell me what the RS say about the subject. Tell me EXACTLY where there's a disparity between what I've added and what the RS say." In response to my comments about NOR. January 25 [120] – "Please assume good faith by adding citation requests to any material that you believe to be original research." In response to my template message about adding unsourced material. [121] – "When notable economic concepts are deleted...then it's no wonder that editors with knowledge of economics see little value in making the effort to contribute." In response to User:Bwilkins' remark about consensus and notability. January 27 [122] – "Please copy and paste the exact policy rule that you are referring to." In response to User:Arthur Rubin's comments about appropriate See also links. [123] – "If you had actually read the entire policy you would have read this: [...]." In response to Rubin's comments on the See also's posted by Xerographica. [124] – "[...] I contributed while the reader simply vandalized. Do YOU not understand the relevance of the links? If you do not, then let me know which ones you struggle to understand and I will be happy to include a note next to those links." In response to User:72Dino, referring to Rubin as "the reader". [125] – "I'm trying my hardest to help you understand the relevance of the links...but you're not interested in answering a ridiculously simple and straightforward question." In response to 72Dino's inquiry about adding See also links (following on previous comment). [126] – "Comment. Clearly the AFD process needs to occur at the relevant projects...not in a general area. It's hardly a prefect solution...but it should hopefully cut down on editors editing well [[WP:COMPETENCE|outside their areas of expertise]]." Comment in an AfD discussion. [127] – "[...] That's why I understand the relevance. The question is...why don't you understand the relevance? Unless you tell me what you DO understand...I can't possibly discern where the gap in your knowledge is. [...] WE can't possibly improve the article if you do not understand all the relevant and important concepts involved." In response to 72Dino's follow-up comment, expressing no desire to make further comment or continue discussion thread. January 29 [128] – Removed {{verification failed}} template placed by Arthur Rubin, with edit summary of "[...] please stop wasting my time" [129] – "If you had actually read the reliable sources then you would have known that this article has always been about the concept." AfD comment, unclear to whom addressed, but edit history indicates Rubin. [130] – "Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article?" Comment to Rubin in AfD discussion. [131] – "[...] My dispute with him is that he rarely rarely ever reads the relevant reliable sources...but he edits the content anyways. For an example of how it's supposed to work...look on the talk page of public choice theory. You can see some exchanges between Thomasmeeks and myself. That kind of exchange has never ONCE occurred with Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO. If it has actually occurred with Rubin or the others...then I'm sure Rubin would be able to provide one such example." In response to User:CarrieVS who had said: "[...] And if we do discuss it here, we will be strictly discussing the content in question, and not anyone's general conduct or editing behaviour." [132] – "Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks." Comment added to AfD discussion. [133] – "Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics." Comment in AfD discussion. [134] – "[...] So if you dispute a point or argument that I make...then please bring your own reliable sources to the table. Show me the evidence that you've actually spent your own time researching the topic. Thanks." Comment in new section, perhaps in response to Morphh. 30 January [135] – "[...] ...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. [...]" Comment in an AfD discussion. [136] – "Can you cite the policy that states that secondary sources are required to establish the relevance of a passage from a primary source? If you're concerned with blockquotes and copyright issues...then you should probably head over to the Wikiquote project and start removing quotes. But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then you're welcome to add some reliably sourced prose." In response to User:Volunteer Marek about concerns with blockquotes and possible copyright issues. [137] – "[....] Have you read any reliable sources on this concept? In other words, what are you basing your argument on?" In another response to Volunteer Marek. [138] – "Please copy and paste the passages from those policies that you think are relevant here." In another response to Volunteer Marek about OR and SYNTH concerns. [139] – "[...] Regarding your ultimatum...can you please explain to me what exactly is your own contribution to the improvement of this article? Because I'm just not seeing it." In response to Volunteer Marek comments about secondary sources (unclear what "ultimatum" is being referred to). [140] – "[...] Except, you've removed nearly all the relevant reliably sourced content...and now it's little more than a dictionary entry. Are you going to build it up into an encyclopedic entry? Or is your contribution simple to tear down other people's modest, albeit highly imperfect, efforts?" In further response to Volunteer Marek. [141] –"[...] Again, please copy and paste the exact relevant policy passage." In further response to Volunteer Marek's comments about blockquotes, OR and SYNTH. 31 January [142] – "Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... [...]. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it." In response to Volunteer Marek's comment about secondary sources and quotefarms. [143] – "If you think quotes are copyright violations then go head over to the Wikiquote project to inform them that they are violating copyright. If you do not see a connection between the quote and the topic...either the connection does not exist...or maybe the connection does exist but you're just not seeing it. Which one do you think it is? Well...given that it was your idea that this topic be redirected to TOC...I'm pretty sure I know which one it is. Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic? " In response to Rubin's comments about quotefarms and possible copyright violations. [144] – "If you truly believe that it's a personal attack to ask another whether they've read the material then update the policy accordingly." In response to my template message (modified) about NPA. [145] – Quotation omitted. Bringing up his previous 2 week block, asked for clarification in NPA policy specifying that particular comments be considered disruptive or not. [146] – "And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements?" In response to Volunteer Marek's comment that many editors were disagreeing with Xerographica, while his response was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [147] – "If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on [AfD page] with an informed comment." In response to User:Lukeno94's observation that other editors could very well be economics majors or other types of experts. [148] – "Have you read the reliable sources?" In response to Rubin's comment about material not in the sources. [149] – "Morphh, I created a section in the body for the Principles of taxation but, as usual, Rich and Rubin removed it. I moved the section over to my subpage...[...]. Rich and Rubin arbitrarily remove any content that I add to a page...so you'll have to add it yourself." A second comment following the one above. [150] – "Great, so contribute the reliably sourced content." In response to Rubin's comment about what certain material says or does not say. [151] – "Can you link to a single article where you and Rubin have contributed actual content? As I've told you countless times...if you disagree with my meager efforts to build an article...then please show me how it's supposed to be done. Clearly, based on numerous reliable sources, the benefit principle and the ability-to-pay are significant tax concepts. Clearly they are missing from this article. Clearly I've made an effort to include them. Clearly you've disagreed with my effort. So please, for once, show me how it's supposed to be done." In response to my comment about the above remark. 1 February [152] – "How can you say that the addition of the passages count as original research if you aren't even able to articulate or identify what, exactly, is original?" In response to Volunteer Marek's remark about needing sources that directly support the material. [153] – "A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge." Reply to comment in AfD discussion by User:Lukeno94 about consensus and relevance of an essay in discussed article. [154] – "Hi, can you please lock [...] again? SPECIFICO is again [diff omitted] removing entire sections of reliably sourced material without bothering to share his concerns on the talk page. Thanks." Request posted on User:Bbb23's talk page. [155] – "An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency." In response to Lukeno94's comment about Xerographica's comments on an article talk page. [156] – "Again, as I've told you countless times, if you have concerns with content, then please post your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks." In response to SPECIFICO's comment about OR and possible ANI complaint. [157] - "Hi, can you please link me to the instance that you are referring to? Thanks." In response to User:Little green rosetta's (LGR) comment about multiple warnings given regarding AGF. [158] – "If he wants to challenge the content then why doesn't he add "citation needed" tags? Isn't he failing to assume good faith?" In response to User:Writ Keeper's message about Xerographica's inappropriate behavior. [159] – "Can you please assume good faith and create a new section to share specific concerns? In other words, I'd like to improve this page but you're not offering specific suggestions. Thanks." In response to Rubin's comment about an unspecified article edit. [160] – "If you'd like to offer some clarification regarding what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack"...then that would be awesome. Please share your thoughts on the personal attack talk page... [link omitted] Thanks." In response to Bwilkins' remark that 'Pretty much' of Xerographica's entire contribution list was 'an instance' of his BATTLEGROUND behavior (brought up by LGR). [161] – Entire quote omitted. Is in a new section, but includes "I'm the only one doing any "building" while there are plenty of editors simply "demolishing" anything that I build." [162] – Entire quote omitted. Is in response to User:Famspear's advice about article improvement, but includes "You won't find a single contribution where they've improved on my prose or added their own prose or added citations or added relevant sources. How can I hope to collaboratively build a project with editors who are clearly far more interested in tearing it down?" and "[...] have these editors show the initiative to build up rather than simply tear down." [163] – "If you are correct that these editors are genuinely interested in removing OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why haven't they made any effort to remove this section... [...] Let's see how sincere they are at removing OR when it comes to [...]." In response to LGR's comment about OR. 2 February [164] – "[...] Regarding your prose, if I had to choose between sharing with someone else the actual passages...or your prose...it wouldn't even be a difficult choice. But it's doubtful that I could do a better job. [...]." In response to my explanation of removal of unsourced and non-prose-summarized content. [165] – "He was talking about We, the People. Have you read it? Do you know what the plot of the story is?" In response to Rubin's comment about 'tax choice' not being in the referenced short story. [166] – (5 paragraphs added, partial quotes provided without [...] "And if you had actually read through all the sources, then you would have found plenty of arguments against tax choice. The fact that you didn't...clearly indicates that, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you haven't sufficiently researched this topic to be making substantial edits to the content." "I very reluctantly have to admit that some of your edits haven't been half bad. But please read more and edit less." In response to my remarks about article edits. 3 February [167] – "What's the argument of Scroogenomics? Have you read the reliable sources that I just added to this entry?" In response to my remark about source and See also entry did not pertain to the article. [168] – (4 paragraphs added, only the first is provided) "I've asked other editors if they've read the reliable sources because their edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. If you think it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources...then change the policy to match your preferences. Because, as it stands, the policy does not state that it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources." In response to my remarks about improperly asking (and assuming) about other editors not reading material. [169] – "No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive." In response to SECIFCO's remarks about OR. [170] – "Are you interested in improving this article? So far it seems like your only interests have been to delete it and to accuse me of soapboxing. From my perspective, somebody cannot fundamentally improve an article if they don't have a firm grasp on the relevant concepts." In response to User:Capitalismojo's comment about the purpose of talk pages and the comments of other editors. 4 February [171] – "You're completely abusing the "no original research" policy. [....] If you don't even have a basic grasp of what foot voting is...then please research the topic until you do. Until then your edits and comments will continue to be disruptive." In response to my remarks about OR. [172] – "This was your edit summary, "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." So again...why did you remove the opportunity cost of war from this article but not from the other two articles? " In response to SPECIFCO's remark about an Edit summary. [173] – "I'm trying to improve this article by including a section on the opportunity costs of war. But I can't do that if SPECIFICO is going to arbitrarily remove it. How do I know his decision was arbitrary? Because he has not removed the "OR" from the other two articles. Given that he has not removed those other sections, clearly he's not genuinely concerned with OR...instead, his interest is to be disruptive." In response to my remark about Xerographica's improper remark (quoted above). [174] – "[... referencing a warning I had posted on his talk page] Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?" [175] – "[...] I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem. [...]" In reply to critical comments from User:Calton. [176] – "It's not a complaint. It's my sincere request that you update the personal attack policy to match your preferences. That way you'll spend all your time warning other editors that it's a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive." In response to my remark about the "Hey Rich" posting on the NPA talk page (referenced above.) 5 February [177] – "It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... [...] Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject." In response to Calton's remarks that amateur reading is not education. [178] – "[...] If somebody hasn't made a single positive contribution to an article...then it's really hard for me to assume good faith when they make numerous negative contributions to an article. And it's even harder to assume good faith when they remove entire sections and continue to insist that the article should be deleted. When their actions and their words are perfectly aligned...then there's no doubt in my mind that their intention is not to improve the article." Part of the response to Bwilkins' observation about Xerographica's "so fuck you" attitude. [179] – "[...] Once [SPECIFCO] makes his first positive contribution...then, and only then...will I consider the possibility that he's interested in improving this article." In response to Capitalismojo's observations about Xerographica seeing bad faith because some other article had not been edited. 6 February [180] – "Rubin, it took me at least an hour to thoroughly read the paper. But you removed it FOUR minutes after I added it to the references. How many times am I going to have to ask you to read more and edit less? First you read the paper and then you can make the argument that it's only indirect. Otherwise, how can we have an informed discussion when you haven't even read the material? Please stop your disruptive editing." Self-evident. [181] – "The topic of the article is the TV show and a strong recurring theme in the TV show is rent seeking. Have you even seen the show?" In response to my comment about the topic of the article being the TV show, and nothing more. [182] – "Yeah, you really nailed my logic there. Why don't you watch the show and then come back so we can have an informed discussion on whether breastfeeding or rent-seeking is more relevant." In response to my remark about keeping his inquiries about seeing or reading material to himself. (Referenced above.) [183] – "The editors review each letter and they have complete discretion over which letters are published. You never answered my question regarding Haldeman. Again, why did you remove his story from the "Further reading" section? Regarding Bird & Tsiopoulos...how do you know that Rubin is correct? Have you read the paper?" In response to rationale of keeping letters to the editor and other off-topic links out of article. [184] – "So according to [WP] policy, letters to the editors and guest posts are not reliable sources? I read over [...] RS policy...but I must have missed it. Can you copy and paste where it says that? Thanks." In response to User:Orangemike's observations about including posts mentioned above in article. 7 February [185] – "What, exactly, is your positive contribution to this article? I searched for, found, thoroughly read over and added specifically relevant material to this article. But rather than help further develop the article, you simply removed the material and are now telling me what I must do in order to improve the article. If you're not willing to strain your brain in order to paraphrase long quotes, if you're not willing to make the effort to repurpose this article... if you're not willing to sacrifice alternative uses of your time in order to actually read the reliable sources...in other words...if you're not willing to WP:DIY...then please refrain from making negative contributions. Thanks." In response to Rubin's remarks about article editing. [186] – "Please "unbundle" your warning and specify exactly which part of my paragraph contains the personal attack. Thanks." In response to my template level 4 NPA warning that included the diff. [187] – "Can you whittle it down a little more?" In response to my quoting the particular language referred to in the above message. [188] – "So it wouldn't be a personal attack to tell another editor to WP:DIY?" In response to my remark that the entire comment to Rubin was improper. [189] – "Please copy and paste the relevant policy passage which states that letters published by editors are never reliable sources...except for the exception you noted. Thanks." In reply to Rubin's comment that LTE are not RS. [190] – "Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits?" In reply to Bwilkins' remark about Xerographica's BATTLE mentality. [191] – "So if I followed you around deleting all the content that you contribute...oh wait...never mind." In response to Rubin's comment that removing inappropriate edits is proper. [192] – New section, not quoted, but contains remarks about Rubin, SPECIFCO and myself. 8 February [193] – Not quoted. Made in response to LGR's observations on his combative attitude. [194] – Not quoted. Further responses to LGR's observations. 9 February [195] – "They don't find their own sources and they don't read the sources that I find." In response to LGR's comment that we don't quiz editors on their competence or require them to read what others consider relevant. [196] – "[...] ...it's original research for you to allow Rubin to remove Mitchell's passage from this article. [...]" In response to User:Fishicus' comments about OR. 10 February [197] – "Also, are you aware that WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" Comment to Rubin. [198] – "[...] How did Rich find the footnote...but not the relevant passage? Let me guess...he simply searched the paper for "consumer sovereignty" rather than actually read through the paper in order to see if any of the material was relevant to the concept. This article is about the concept...not the term itself. Did you know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" In response to SPECIFICO's comment about a deletion I had made. [199] – "How do you know his edit is valid? Have you read the paper? Also, I'm still looking forward to your reply... " In response to SPECIFICO about an edit I had made. [200] – "You have no idea how ridiculously easy it is to prove that Rich's edit was nothing but disruptive. I just go to my database, search for "Rizzo" and then filter down to find the relevant passages... [text from a quote apparently found in a Google search] If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing." In response to SPECIFICO's comment that I am innocent of invalid editing until proven guilty. [201] – "[AfD/Freedom of choice.] Does this count as canvassing or appropriate notification?" – New section in talk page. Follow-on comments by other editors said 'canvassing'. (But the bell had been rung. In follow-on comment ([202]) he noted that notices were appropriate on Project pages, whereas this was an article talk page. But Xerographica argued that there was no difference between posting here vice a Project page.) [203] – "Ah yes, Rubin's Relentless Red Tape. We need a source about a source about a source about a source. You tightly tie your hands with ridiculous red tape so you can rationalize why you consistently fail to add any content to economic articles. Why don't you first read this source...and then tell me what additional sources you want me to fetch for you." In response to Rubin. [204] – "Fool me once, I'll assume good faith. Fool me twice, and AGF is no longer applicable. You, Rich and Rubin have consistently removed reliably sourced content and sources. AGF is no longer relevant...there's an obvious pattern of disruptive editing. Well...it's been obvious to me for a long time...but I don't see any evidence that your behavior will change any time soon. So eventually it will be obvious to other editors as well." In response to SPECIFICO's unsigned AGF 3 warning. [205] – Quote omitted. Paraphrase: 'You deleted quotes from an article I worked on, why didn't you remove quotes from this other article?' [206] – "So, are you going to delete the "Key excerpts" section from that other article? If not, then why not?" In response to User:72Dino's comments about typical article structure. Follow-on comment by Xerographica [207] thanked Dino for not deleting sections and trying to help him understand how WP works. [208] – "Please copy and paste exactly what it was that I said that you consider to be a personal attack." In response to my level 4 template message about NPA, in which I cited the diff and the passage which was improper. [209] – "[4th of 8 paragraphs, largely quoting a source] Over and over and over I've told you about the opportunity cost concept. But evidently you still don't get it." In response to Rubin's comment about a particular source. 11 February [210] – "[3rd of 4 paragraphs about his goals in editing this article] I've added numerous sections to this article...and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have deleted them. There are plenty of reliable sources...yet I do not see these editors going through the RSs and adding the relevant material to this article. Cutting content is easy, but contributing content takes effort. Building is always more of a challenge than simply tearing down. Because all these editors do is tear down...I've lost my good faith in them. Once they start actually building this article up...then, and only then, will my faith in them start to renew." In response to Capitalismojo's suggestions for article improvement. [211] – Refers to an addition he made last month with a Sesame Street U-tube piece. In my remark that his original addition was WP:POINTy, he said "To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts. But you haven't been willing to meet me half way. You never do your own homework. Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown. [...] " [212]. And then: "Thanks for the positive feedback...but your advice is a day late and a dollar short... [...] The thing is...there are other editors who could really benefit from your advice to "measure twice, cut once". I've been telling Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO to "read more, edit less". (At: [213].) 12 February [214] – "SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks." In response to edits on article page. [215] – "Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution?" Remark refers to a revert I did to User:Erinbarnes in which a new (SPA?) editor did revisions to same. [216] – "I have no problem engaging with them...my problem is that the ioby page would have been better off without their edits. They go around tearing down but they never build up. No worries, I'm sure they'll do it again. Hopefully, eventually, you'll see the pattern." In response to LGR's comment about SPECIFICO and myself. [217] – Quotation omitted. While comment references his creation of the article (copied from a userpage), it also references edits by Rubin, SPECIFICO and myself on other article pages. [218] – Quotation omitted. Comment is on an article talk page, is addressed to User:Hugo Spinelli, providing "context" about past incidents involving other articles. (This comment has been removed by me as WP:TPNO ([219]). [220] – "Rubin removed preference revelation from the "See also" section because he believes that it is "irrelevant". Given that he evidently feels qualified to remove the topic...he must be sufficiently familiar with both topics. Is this correct Rubin?" Self evident. [221] – "Of course it matters...given that you follow me around undoing my edits. So what part(s) of that passage do you not understand?" Comment in the above discussion.

Further edits and evidence worth considering:

• Xerographica brought up an ANI regarding SPECIFICO, Rubin and myself. Overall the discussion was more about his behavior. See: [222]."
• He developed a "to do list" (name changed after discussion) User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4#My To Do List as a WP:UP#POLEMIC during his block period.

Besides numerous warnings, there have been efforts to promote positive editing since block expired:

• User talk:Xerographica#Article creation break? – started by User:Lawrencekhoo
• User talk:Xerographica#Unnecessary war – Comments by me, as a comrade in arms.
• User talk:Xerographica#Military SMEs needed – Comment by me suggesting a change of focus to military topics.
• User talk:Xerographica#Change your approach – Comments by User:Little green rosetta
• User talk:Xerographica#Burden of proof on Tax choice – Comments by User:Writ Keeper
• User talk:Xerographica#Suggestion – Editor Review – Suggestion by me that he undertake WP:ER
• User talk:Xerographica#Last chance – Further comments by Little green rosetta.
• User talk:Xerographica#Extra training – Suggestion by me, as a former US Army NCO. If he had agreed, I would have assigned WP:ER.
• Additionally, I sought to give him input via (confused) and [[File:|25px|link=]] (facepalm). But even (raspberry) did not faze him.

Comments about his behavior, attitude, remarks, etc. have been added by various other editors in talk page commentaries. These diffs are not provided.

Final observations:

• WP:TE is perhaps the most pertinent essay for analyzing Xerographica's behavior. I think that 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14 are directly on point.
• WP:DE applies, particularly in terms of consensus building and ignoring community input.
• While WP:GRIEF pertains to spammers, the various stages of grief apply to Xerographica.

As the last diff (of 13 February) is the latest NPA, following repeated level 4 final warnings, this history is submitted for consideration.

– S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the forbearance of many editors has enabled user Xerographica's abusive edit list to achieve unusual length. A shorter list is given here [223] [224] SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin: I made it through Feb. 05, and I'm just not really seeing anything other than an editor who is obviously frustrated, and should probably communicate a little more level-headed...but nothing crazy. Definitely not personal attacks. What are you wanting the admins to do with this? Ditch ∝ 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• An WP:RFC/U might be better equipped to handle this than ANI (has one been done already? Did I miss it?).--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior. [225]

The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Yes, I did consider RFC/U, but felt it would not result in definitive action. The result would be a "Nah-nah-nah, you tried to get me!" from Xerographica. The alternative, next stronger stop would be ArbCom, but that was not appropriate course of action either. As for the non-NPA nature of his remarks, I've felt he was "Borderlining" to an extreme, and thereby failing to work towards consensus. (And thanks for the hatting.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is certainly a two way street. But in my defense...I'd like to think that I'm improving and "evolving" over time to more closely conform to Wikipedia behavioral standards. For example...

1. Recently I have been seeking feedback from neutral editors...User_talk:Little_green_rosetta#ioby
2. Since this warning by Writ Keeper...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice I have not undone a single edit by Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO
3. And as Ditch Fisher noted above, I am no longer engaging in personal attacks

Regarding my own complaint...well...if you've read over the evidence shared by Rich...it's clear that my biggest complaint is that they make substantial edits to pages without first reading the reliable sources. Therefore, given that their edits are not based on reliable sources...then clearly they violate the no original research policy. Unfortunately, it's not that clear to outside editors. I'm fairly confident though that it's just a matter of time before enough other editors start to catch on.

Additionally, these editors are engaging in Wikipedia:Harassment. They follow me around undoing my edits. For example, how in the world would Rich have known to undo my edit on the House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)? That's just too much of a coincidence. But doesn't the volume of evidence that Rich shared speak for itself? How could there possibly be so much editing overlap unless they watch my contributions? Our interests truly are not that aligned. If they were, then I wouldn't have to try and persuade them to read the reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Is WP:GAMING going on in Xerographica's remarks? I.e., 'Playing the victim' by saying these editors are harassing him. I.e., 'Playing policies against each other' by saying my complaint is a two way street – e.g., that he might have a complaint about me? I.e., "sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected" when he says that "other editors [will] start to catch on" to his POV regarding OR, SYN, RS? Other bits of gaming: 1. Ditch Fisher read through 5 February and did not say Xerographica was no longer engaging in PA. 2. It is clear to Xerographica alone that other editors are not reading the RS and are therefore engaged in OR. 3. The "recent" requests for feedback were not to evaluate his behavior, but to look at edits made by other editors. (Nevertheless, as the requests were made to Little green rosetta, I certainly accept the good faith of the requests in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – This is interesting. While this discussion is going on, Xerographica continues to make remarks about other editors. [226] – "Hugo Spinelli built the article up, and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are trying to tear it down. SPECIFICO is the one who nominated it for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_of_choice. Where's their positive contributions? Where are the reliable sources that they've brought to the table? I know it's hard to see a pattern with so few instances. But thanks for taking a look at it." In a comment made to User:Writ Keeper referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it "gaming" to share my side of the story? And it clearly is harassment. Out of all the articles mentioned in your evidence...how many did you edit before I did?

And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...

If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too.

I deserved to be "stalked" because my area of interest is public choice? The only other active editor who is also knowledgeable about public choice theory is Thomasmeeks. Here's what he had to say about the subject...Talk:Benefit_principle#Recognition_to_creator_of_this_article

Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.

X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is really only going to end when the three of you stick to editing articles that interest you enough to actually read about. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because it failed verification. I'm not going to say that you didn't read it, but no one with good knowledge of English who did read it would find it supported the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – I ask that Xerographica's comments directed towards SPECIFICO's past editing not become a distraction from the main issue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried taking these pages off of my watchlist, but the dispute seems to have followed me regardless, so I guess I should just drop a note here. From my somewhat limited prior experience with this dispute, it appears to me that Xerographica is very passionate about this subject, adn has good intentions. That's not in and of itself a problem, but who was it that compared strong opinions on Wikipedia to tigers in a zoo? It comes to mind. The things that I had an impression are the real problems are these: a) Xerographicahas little sense of discrimination as far as material that should be in the article as opposed to material that should stay out. It appears that, in Xerographica's mind, a reliable source guarantees inclusion in an article; any edit that removes sourced content is a negative edit, no matter why the material was in fact removed. See Talk:Tax_choice#Eisenhower_vs._Hitler? for an example of this. Second, and more importantly, it seems that Xerographica doesn't quite understand original research and especially synthesis; it seems to me that Xerographica is, perhaps unknowingly inserting their own inferences and conclusions between sourced bits of information. An example of what made me think this way is at User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. Basically, this unfamiliarity with Wikipedia norms is leading to Xerographica's frustration with the other editors, who are objecting to their edits for seemingly incomprehensible reasons, causing the lashouts. Unfortunately, because Xerographica is so passionate about this issue, they're not particularly willing to accept criticism, and also prone to edit-warring and other seemingly aggressive behavior. The edit-warring is what drew my attention to Xerographica in the first place, but to their credit, I have not heard that they continued to edit-war after I issued a warning. Again, I haven't made a comprehensive survey of Xerographica's edits, so I can't say if this is a consistent problem, or if this is the same issues that others have noted. This is just what I've observed in the conflicts I've been exposed to, and what seems like the root of the problem to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Economics" was what I was thinking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding improvements in my editing. Here are three of my most recent articles...
• The Other Invisible Hand
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Scroogenomics

Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up? My contributions are certainly far far far from perfect...but can you name any editors who are actively creating/improving economic articles? I mentioned Thomasmeeks already...and recently Hugo Spinelli did a great job with Freedom of choice. Yet look on the talk page to see his difficulties with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO. They criticize and tear down other people's efforts but I've never once seen them build up any article. I can share plenty of articles that I've made a highly imperfect effort to try and build up. Yet where's a single article that these three editors have significantly improved? Where's an article where they've done it better? Doesn't anybody think it strange that these editors cannot provide a single example of an article that they've built up?

I wouldn't at all mind criticism from these editors if they actually led by example...but they really do not lead by example. They can't even provide one single example! I can show you plenty of my contributions so you know exactly what you'd be losing if you blocked me from editing economic articles. But what would be the loss if you blocked Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO? There would be no loss...and that's a problem. --Xerographica (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Clarification for Darkstar. The count is 116, as the diffs begin with #52. The first (#51) is the block log, provided as the starting point. Was I looking too hard? Well, there is the pre-block history, which is not included. And I might have given descriptions to the his comments, like "snide" or "cute". (I did so in response to him directly a few times.) But the point is, that Xerographica constantly throws out these comments. So, given the borderline nature of many of them, they are invidious. Alas, someone needed to do something; and, as there are other things I rather do, I did not enjoy this project much. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had the same problems with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO since I edited Freedom of Choice, but now things seem to be moving on. Anyway, as far as I know, I don't see any serious violation of WP's policies by Xerographica. I find it really hard to assume good faith with their disruptive edits and abuse of DRs, so I can understand Xerographica's frustrations. I share the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – In reply to Xerographica immediately above.

I'll refer you to Carl Eytel, which I started and which took one year and over 500 edits from myself and 14 other editors to achieve Good Article status.

Here are the diffs on Scroogenomics: [227] – 3 by you at the start in setting up the article and 22 subsequent edits by 5 other editors.

Hugo Spinelli did not suffer disruptive edits from me. I modified the talk page headings in accordance with WP:TPO to neutralfy them. I posted the rationale on the edit summary when I did so. And I have quoted the particular language of the TPO guidance on that talk page. And I apologized to Hugo when it appeared that he did not understand the rationale. (And I am sorry to see that Hugo finds it hard to AGF. This essay WP:AAGF, is one that he might find interesting.)

– S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

support. i am convinced some action is needed. thx to srich for having the patience to explain the issue in such detail. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support RFC/U Look, I don't know what the hell else to try in order to get Xerographica to fall in line with Project and Community Norms. Blocks don't phase him. Polite correction has xero effect. Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i see what you did there Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am not an admin and I am unsure whether I should comment here. If not, I apologize and will remove this. I was mentioned in the 'extended history' above and have two thoughts. First, it is inappropriate to hide Easter Eggs in articles (humorous or otherwise) in order to make points about whether Wikipedia editors read or comprehend your additions. Second, the assertion that other editors are incapable of understanding or are insufficiently interested in and hence incapable of editing is appalling. This editor has passion and fire. It needs some tempering. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – To Bwilkins & Capitalismojo: please see my comment to (my buddy) Darkstar here: [228]. I really don't think there is a pony under all of that horse shit. To Capitalismojo: your comments are most welcome. We are not just "users" of WP, we are contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment While I have noticed problems with X (and they appear to continue to a lesser degree) I can understand his frustration with a cadre of editors following his every move. Not that him being followed is a bad thing for the pedia, but it is certainly making him uncomfortable.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – Various observations about Xerographica being uncomfortable, upset, frustrated, or whatever are missing the point. The fact that certain editors, or any editors at all, are monitoring his activity, and making repeated efforts (with both honey and vinegar) to get him to improve his attitude and editing, is missing the point. The fact that he might have something to contribute alongside his tirades, pleadings, unfounded admonitions, complaints, highhanded sounding superior comments (and attacks), is missing the point. Note, please, that his disruptive, truculent, and selfish pattern of editing and commenting has gone on for some 2,000 edits, 770 of which are on article pages and the remainder on article/user talk pages. (I cannot tell you how many comments have been made about or to him. I suspect the number would be a comparatively high one.) Pleading, discussion, warnings, blocks, etc. have not helped. Moreover, with the conclusion of each block, he continues with the same behavior. (Indeed, he has had blocks extended because of his comments made in appealing the blocks.) The point is that the community is being treated unfairly when his behavior continues as it has. The point is that actual contributors, not just those editors who are following him, are frustrated, upset, uncomfortable, and disrupted each time Xerographica issues another "you are not qualified to comment because you are biased, did not read, do not understand, do not see the wisdom that I seek to impart to the world, etc." Is it unfair to "hound" Xerographica? Only if the hounding lacked basis or was simply personal – but that is not the case. Is it unfair to the community to have him continue on? Yes. I am convinced that a RFC/U would have no positive results. The RFC/U could only repeat the admonitions about his DE, and ask him to stop what he has been doing for these 2,000 edits. Xerographica had had his chance to behave according to community standards when the last block ended, but his behavior picked up again immediately following the block. So I ask, who is being treated unfairly? In my opinion, the community is. And allowing Xerographica to snarl about, unleashed, uncaged, is a disservice to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's a case of the snarling tiger versus the proverbial bull in the china shop. I'm only snarling at the bull because it's destroying the china. But maybe it's not destroying the china? Unfortunately, there just aren't enough editors to form a credible consensus with regards to economic topics. That means that any "snarling" on my part is far easier for outside editors to spot than the destruction of china is.

But I've honestly made an effort to tone down my "snarling". The thing is...I really don't think it's "snarling" to ask another editor whether they've done their homework. These three editors follow me around and undo my edits. Maybe they know something that I don't. So I ask them whether they've read the material. And then they accuse me of personally attacking them. If they asked me the same question I would simply answer "Yes, I have". If they produce a source that I haven't read (which has never happened), then why would I accuse them of personally attacking me if they ask whether I've read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Observations:
  • We had much of the same in [229] the block of last December. Arguments were made in that appeal which simply repeated the behavior that lead to the block. With the December block in mind, I submit that the "They don't read" is nothing more than the other side of the the same "They don't add value" coin.
  • Last month's block [230] has the same thing that we see above. E.g., he said "I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable." (X's closing remark in appealing the block.)
  • Both before and after this last block I and others talked to him about what a worthless and disruptive question the inquiry is. E.g., I tried to tell him that he should not ask "have you read the sources I provided?". (And here he repeats it!) Why?
    • 1. AGF means you assume the other editor has read it. On the other hand, asking if "Did you see this part: 'The world is round' in Columbus' diary? I think it supports the idea of ...." That sort of question opens dialogue. That sort of question is focused. That sort of question can and does AGF. But no ....
    • 2. No what? No, X has figured out on his own that other editors have not read stuff, and he declares so directly in his comments.
    • 3. In any event, what are the two possible answers to X? They are: a. "No. I haven't." Which would only reinforce his smug, superior attitude and thereby engender another remark belittling the editor. Or, b. "Yes. I have." In one such case, X ended up saying [231] "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
    • 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
  • Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
  • His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
  • Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
  • Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.

– S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.

Many editors assert that Xerographica is the "bull", creating articles which are not encyclopedic, promote his POV (which I generally agree with, but, I recognize it is a POV), have excessive quotes and "see also" links, and do not have references (and probably other problems I don't recall at the moment.)

Xerographica asserts that many editors have not read (his provided) source materials; are removing relevant quotations, references, and Wikilinks; (and probably other offenses I don't recall.).

So, who is (creating the) bull?

As an aside, in most cases, I don't think X is violating WP:OR except as WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Suggested course of action:

1. While I am not familiar with the technical details, I recommend a one-month WP:TBAN on Xerographica from editing on any pages related to economics, libertarianism, capitalism, or politics. Article categories (by parent) would be the determinants.
2. Likewise, Xerographica be interaction banned from commenting on any talk pages, user or otherwise, for the duration of the ban. (His own talk page would be the exception.)
3. Xerographica undertake an WP:Editor review during his ban. If he completes it before the close of 30 days, he can appeal the ban and ask for an early termination. If he does not complete the review, he must go to the banning administrator/community and justify the delay.
4. As part of the ER process, he post the ER templates on his user/talk pages.
5. In return (and at the risk of making this nonsense look like a personal battle), I will WP:DGF and undertake two reviews of the backlogged Editor Reviews. One at the outset of the 30 days and one upon completion of Xerographica's review.
6. This ban may be imposed in one of two ways. If technically or administratively possible, as a WP:CBAN IAW WP:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. If not by Banning policy, then voluntarily by Xeriographica.
7. In either case, the sanction gets logged.

That's it. I'm putting away my WP:BLUDGEON. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on commenting again in this thread, but I'd like to say that a ban from posting on any talk page is a terrible idea. If we're considering sanctions other than blocks, it should be because we're trying to guide him into being a more productive editor. An essential part of the editing process is discussion of differences on talk pages; taking away that option will only make things worse, not better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For everybody's consideration, here's one of my most recent interactions with Rubin and SPECIFICO... Talk:Free_rider_problem#See_also_-_preference_revelation. Was there snarl on my part? Yes. Like I said, it's frustrating when the same three people follow you around and undo your edits. In the past I would have engaged in an edit war and would have been far more snarly. But now I simply post my disagreement on the talk page. In this instance I made a genuine effort to try and help Rubin, and then SPECIFICO, understand the connection and relationship between the two concepts. I could have been nicer, I could have been more patient and I certainly could have better explained the connection. But if it had been anybody else (other than Rich) I certainly would have been nicer and more patient.

From my perspective, just like I'm completely clueless about physics...these three editors are completely clueless about the free-rider problem and all of the other economic concepts that they edit. But now I'm posting my disagreements on the talk pages. It might take a month, or a year or 5 years...but hopefully eventually another editor will come along, read what I've posted on the talk pages and undo the damage caused by these editors. It's certainly not "natural" for me to standby and patiently and politely voice my disagreement with their edits. But I've got the standby part down. I no long undo their edits. Regarding patience...well...I did spend my time trying to help them understand the concept. That took a lot of patience on my part. Regarding politeness/civility...I no longer engage in what most would consider to be personal attacks. Can I eliminate the "snarl" though? Could you not be snarly to editors who are clearly and constantly harassing you?

How about this. If you guys actually enforce the policy against harassment...Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding...then I will really try to stop snarling at these three editors. If not, then all I can promise is that I won't engage in what most would perceive to be personal attacks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: you make a month worth of edits that are a) all within policy, b) all assume good faith, c) don't attack any editor directly or indirectly ... and I can guarantee that most editors will find no reason to have to follow your non-compliant editing behaviours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

Whether or not you agree, I see related problems on multiple (economics) articles, and articles you perceive as economics articles, including {{quotefarm}}, providing "references" without indicating what text in the reference might be relevant to what text in the Wikipedia article, misreading sources (often, by adding your own knowledge of (a particular school of) economics to interpret the source), adding "See also" links which are only relevant through another article already Wikilinked, or are not relevant at all, interpreting common "folk" sayings as economic concepts, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Any comments on my proposed course of action? Or does Xerographica get to decide what the community has to do? – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I recommend as follows:

90-day topic ban on editing articles in categories economics, libertarianism, capitalism, and politics.

No restriction on any talk page interaction or on article editing in other categories.

Subject to WP rights of unblock request and appeal. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I fear it will not be sufficient (and I commend the patience of the editors who have not given up trying to explain the concept of WP:OR to X, who in my opinion simply feels that a superior intellect such as his is not bound by it, so tries to argue it out of existence); but nonetheless I support Specifico's recommendation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Jeez, I thought I was tough as I was looking a 30 day period of rehab. But my proposal was toughened up with the Editor Review, which I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors. Well, I'll sweeten the bargain on my end. One, if X will undergo the ER, I'll double my load on reviewing their backlog. Two now and two upon completion of X's 30 day ban. But X has gotta act soon if he's interested in doing the ER voluntarily. I may pull my offer off the table, which would not benefit the ER backlog. (And don't get me wrong, I've made some recent changes concerning ER which should improve it and its' role in the project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am uneasy imposing a mandatory ER as a penalty. I prefer to give X the freedom of choice to elect such a review for himself. X can evaluate his opportunity cost for the Editor Review against its potential to improve his chances for successful editing career here. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding original research, I recently expanded the article on preference revelation. Where's the OR? Clearly there's plenty of research...but where have I added anything that's "original"? Regarding "rehab", I think it's unreasonable to expect me to be nicer to the three editors who are harassing me. It's also pretty unreasonable to block me when they are the ones who are clearly violating Wikipedia policy. --Xerographica (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Here's what Rich said above..."I hope could steer X into a less confrontational and demeaning interchanges with his fellow editors". And here's what he just posted on his talk page...

Fuck you, Spinelli, there's no edit war going on.

Do you know what Orangemike blocked me for two weeks for saying? He blocked me because I said that other editors were "willfully ignoring reliable sources"...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. --Xerographica (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – And here is the discussion I had with Spinelli before he tagged by talk page with his edit war message: Talk:Brady_Haran#Future_Projects – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Was my comment WP:VULGAR? Obviously so. Should I say WP:SORRY? I'm thinking about it. (I've said sorry in the past for my mistakes, including a sorry to X.) But (or should I say "Butt") the issue in this discussion is regarding Xerographica's many uncivil and non-AGF remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know whether you should apologize (actually don't care), but I know that invoking the name of Paul Harvey to justify telling someone to fuck off is exceedingly lame. Unfortunately we don't have a Wikipedia:Biographies of dead persons policy here, so there's not much I can about such a disrespectful use of a man's name. NE Ent 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I added a section on preference revelation to public goods, public finance and public economics. Rubin undid my contributions with the following explanation, "Somewhat relevent, but much too long". Rather than undo his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about his edits, rather than tell him exactly what I think about the value of his contributions as an editor, rather than give him honest feedback, I simply posted my highly filtered thoughts on the talk pages. It's really not easy to hold back...especially when he is clearly harassing me and none of you admins are doing anything about it. But I did hold back. I'm not asking for an award here...I'm simply asking that you don't block me. --Xerographica (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so adding incredibly long and therefore knowingly inappropriate sections to an article, then whinging when it's removed is supposed to somehow absolve you from the fact that competence is required? Those edits were pointy, and you know it - you knew they would be removed before you even clicked "save", but you couldn't wait for your adversary to remove them so you could come here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that, based on a thorough review of the relevant literature, I identified where there's significant room for improvement and made the effort to contribute valuable and well cited content. Could it have been shorter? Sure, just like all the other preexisting sections could have been shorter. But I don't see Rubin removing all the other sections because they are "much too long". Nor do I see him removing all the sections that are poorly cited at best. And I certainly do not see him contributing any content to these articles or to any other economic articles. All I see is him following me around undoing my edits. But rather than do anything about it, you'd prefer to assume that I intentionally added that content for the sole purpose of entrapping Rubin. I'm certainly not surprised that one of these three editors undid my contributions, but I'd much much much prefer it if Rubin hadn't. Who wouldn't prefer not to have their considerable effort undone? --Xerographica (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Look, people ... many kb of text ago, it seemed to be clear that an RFC/U was the right way to go. Rather than actually take that step, the sniping escalated: Person A sniped at Person B, Person B sniped at Person C...and so on. Are you afraid of RFC/U's because your own actions will also be looked at? Tough shit! Yeah, Xerographica is disruptive, but not to the point of block via this board at the moment, capische? Continuing this thread well past its useful life is also disruptive. File your damned RFC/U - I'm sure you'll have more than the requisite number of certifiers. Until then, I recommend some voluntary topic bans, some voluntary interaction bans, and at least one person whose username starts with X should go back and re-fricking-read the purpose of this project and WP:CIVIL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• BY OP – Seems everyone wants something done (including X, who wants something done to everyone else but him). Of course I do too, and that's why I worked up this ANI. And in attempts to get this resolved, I made my repeated suggestion that X undertake an ER. (Seems that the scale of possible actions goes from ER, next to RFC/U, to ANI, to ArbCom, etc.) X won't do an ER on his own, and no one can force him. But I think a block, that would be immediately lifted upon positive results from an ER, would be helpful. So I ask an admin to set up the block – or close this discussion. If the block is implemented, I shall fulfill my commitment to undertake ER reviewing on the backlog regardless of X's own willingness to undertake. If this discussion gets closed without a block, then I shall undertake the RFC/U. (I'd rather have the time devoted to ER reviewing.) So, concerned admin, whoever you are, please take action. I and the community will be grateful. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Or just close this. If something were to be done, it would have been done by now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 20 February 2013 (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.

Blocked IP slinging insults, will be unblocked to disrupt further tomorrow

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.

---

91.145.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 91.145.38.53 was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing on Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. His posts have gotten increasingly hostile, and he's now using his talk page (while blocked) to insult other editors. "you retarded pedophile look-alike dipshit", "F U C K YOU WIKIPEDIA ADMINS", "Go fuck yourself your pathetic censorship dictator wannabe", etc.

The insults should be removed (since one was levied against me, I'd prefer not to do it myself), but more importantly, I see no reason to suspect that this behavior won't continue after the user is auto unblocked tomorrow. EdJohnston performed the initial block, and I contacted him on his talk page first, but it looks like he's out for the night. If someone uninvolved could step in, that would be great. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked with talk page access disabled. Insults removed, unless I missed some. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:08, 20 February 2013 (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.

Lobsang Sangay

Resolved

Paged is nuked! Please somebody look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The page never existed under that spelling. Is there an alternate spelling? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's right there. Since 2009. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Err no? Garbage (the whole page ) appears here. Im using a server from japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, must be something else then. Page exits. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They changed the spelling. And the page looks fine here where the temperature is −41 °C (−42 °F) CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Choyoo and Cambridgebay. However, it is still garbage(See below). I am accessing from a server in Japan. This is what appears:�����}k�$�q�g��H61�Yj�=�ޝ&fg�E�.�ffI�v�FvUvw�TW��1����J4��d���,?�N��w�aQ�%�([����ᾭ���:����?\Ddf�{�g�A�({�:����������^�y{���{7�(���K�����3ܬ���L�߬ء_a�̓`�bؖpª�> *X\p���Vh������&;�?��Uٻ֑� ��K,� 6��`�1���R򵺬x��X���#��"ܬ�?�Y]����p�XlV���>�]��uBc�r���nX��jN��UͶ�#� {���P���E��S����g[��-ש?�N�.� ��������V�<>� #_ 6+�I�rL��捼7dI5Ҟ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.212.2 (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the most likely explanation is that you are affected by some kind of filtering. Maybe related to Chinese censorship? If you try this link] (without saving!), maybe you can read the wiki source code of the page. Hans Adler 09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also accessing from Japan, I bet the user's browser is at fault. Look up mojibake. Shii (tock) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks fine to me too, and I'm accessing this from Japan. Maybe you managed to change the character encoding somehow? Try changing it to UTF-8 and see what happens. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Standard browser configuration issue - not set to correct encoding, or missing certain fonts. Not much we can do from this end, as it's not an admin issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, its fine now from a server in the ,Philippines. I'm the same guy above(annonymous.) The server I was accessing from is based in Japan. Well, thanks for your action and response Shii, Hans Adler, Bwilkins , Mr Strandivarius and others. --Jondel (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a caching issue caused by the recent rash of template vandalism. IPs were being shown the older, vandalized revisions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Need a fast block

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.

---

MikeIsRight12 (talk · contribs) created an account, and then immediately set in to reverting edits I made across a wide range of articles. The user then started reverting random edits by Little green rosetta (talk · contribs). Given the intersection, I'm 99% certain this is Ysfan (talk · contribs), a user I indef'd after disruption on Ys (series), who had also had run-ins with LGR. I've had to block two Ysfan socks already in the past 3 days. I almost blocked myself, but since it's technically my real edits being reverted, I figure someone else should do the honors. But while we're here, if anyone would like to weigh in whether or not I could block in this case, it might help, as I doubt that this person is actually done. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, especially since the stress almost caused Q to block themself, which would be quite embarrassing, I'd think. NE Ent 12:23, 20 February 2013 (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.

John Laing plc

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

---

An IP keeps blanking the page of the John Laing plc article and inserting a cut and paste job from the company brochure. I have reverted it a couple of times but fear it is coming from the company marketing department. Dormskirk (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added 9.38 kb of level 1 or equivalent warning templates to the user's talk page to cover the extent of policy violations. Now we wait for a response. —Rutebega (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't use that many warnings. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if that doesn't get a response, what will? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was warning overkill. GiantSnowman 09:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, but I also don't think level one templates, even in excess, constitute biting. He hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours, and if he does come back, hopefully the reading material alone will ensure the issue doesn't arise again. —Rutebega (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for 10 days. Let's wait and see if the promotional editing continues afterwards; I hope not. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for all your help. The IP has asked me for help on my talk page which is a good step forward. I have asked him / her for a list of errors and ommissions so I can help him / her expand the article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (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.

Outing and personal attacks on srWiki

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'd like to bring to attention the activities of PANONIAN (talk · contribs) on the Serbian Wikipedia. The relevant thread is named "?" and is between the user and Nado158 (talk · contribs). I'll just let PANONIAN explain:

"Brother, what happened? You're nowhere to be found on the English Wikipedia. Hail! --Nado158 (разговор) 17:40, 27 January 2013 (CET)

Well what am I to do? There my account is banned anyway from the subject of Serbian history, and that's my main field of interest, so I can't do practically anything. While those several dumb and biased admins are active I can't do a thing, and I won't beg them to lift my topic ban. --PANONIAN (разговор) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (CET)

And how did it come to that? I can see the administrators are very much against us and support an Anti-Serbian policy and all those who write against us. Who are they? What's happening? I fight as much as I can! --Nado158 (разговор) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (CET)

Brother, did you ask me (via e-mail) for some help four weeks ago with regard to Vojvodina and Baranja???? --Nado158 (разговор) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (CET)

No, I did not ask for help via e-mail in regard to that. And you're right about the administrators, its clear they support almost anybody who's against Serbs. What is one to expect anyway from someone who's mind has been brainwashed for the past 20 years by Western media? As for how I got banned, that's the fault of [OUTING], who appears on the English Wikipedia under the names of DIREKTOR, PRODUCER, and Peacemaker67 (here I enclose a list of his sockpuppets: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Корисник:PANONIAN/Suspected_sockpuppets_of_user_DIREKTOR). He uses all those accounts to convince administrators that more people support his idiotic views, while on the basis of the behavior of those accounts and their positions it is absolutely certain that one man stands behind all three (this is of course clear to anyone who's had dealings with them over the period of a couple months, while its difficult to convince administrators whom invest only a few minutes into the question). The administrators, therefore, rejected my demand to research whether those accounts are sockpuppets, and banned me from subjects related to Serbian history. I had the option to ask for a lift of my ban after six months, but as they said I violated it (and they falsely accused me, I had not), its not likely they would have lifted it even if I asked. I complained to even the founder of Wikipedia about those administrators, but he didn't reply to me. In any case, I consider all this a question of patience. None of them will hand around Wikipedia forever and all the stupidity can be removed with one click, its all just a matter of time. The situation is currently bad, but it will get better. More and more people gain access to the internet, and I think one day a Russian, Chinese or Indian will become an administrator (rather than an Amer [American], German, or Japanese), and they will not be so biased against Serbs. --PANONIAN (разговор) 06:58, 29 January 2013 (CET)

I apologize then, I must have understood something incorrectly. I was a little confused, because it was in English, and in very bad English at that [presumably the e-mail asking for help]. For the rest, what can I tell you. --Nado158 (разговор) 19:21, 29 January 2013 (CET)"

In addition to the above, the user has a special page he apparently likes to point out to people, entitled User:PANONIAN/Suspected_sockpuppets_of_user_DIREKTOR, where he's attempting to WP:OUT me and branding five users and myself as sockpuppets. The user is currently topic banned. I'd like to request, if possible, that the user be banned entirely. I'd also like to inquire as to where I need to go to have oversight strike that nonsense from srWiki? -- Director (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(If one is concerned about outing, one generally does not out oneself when reporting it) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Stupid mistake, I'll have WP:OV strike it, but its not my full real name. Its more like an "internet version", people I know wouldn't recognize it. -- Director (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (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:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC

I believe that this ANI thread arose because I had the gall to point out that:

1. User_talk:IZAK#No_good_deed_goes_unpunished;
2. User_talk:IZAK#List_of_recent_discussions_concerning_me_where_I_was_not_informed; and especially
3. User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses (against User:Bob K31416

...are against the policy WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. I asked at User_talk:IZAK#WP:POLEMIC, and you responded with your wikidrama rubbish there, and then here (and I note that you've brought your friends).

It certainly seems that you're not going to remove the content on your talkpages attacking other users on your own, so I'd like to ask that an admin do it for you. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Danjel, now you are here, can't keep up, but as I quite clearly indicated to you, those are not "attack pages" they are a record of official accusations, including a false libel where I was subjected to a "check user" that was quickly deleted, for no reason other than that record stood agisnt you and your friend Bob. Let me repeat what I have stated at my talk page: ...this is just a record on my own talk page of recent events that concern me, and about the various discussions that concerned me that I wasn't even informed about, that I have created a record of for the record. I could have lodged some pretty serious complaints against Bob for not informing me, but I did not wish to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND that you seem to delight in. Stop it! In addition to that, in the course of researching the above lack of basic WP:WIKIQUETTE of informing a user about a discussion that concerns him (me) I also put forth for the record some serious instances where Bob's arguments trying to find support for his WP:POV are rejected by some pretty serious editors including Jimbo Wales. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An official record of accusations, for example your recording that Bob has once been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bob_K31416; by the way, the difference in the way Bob responded and how you have responded... STUNNING). Sounds like "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" (WP:POLEMIC) to me, which hasn't been used in any dispute resolution process in a "timely manner" since you posted it two weeks ago. But, by all means, continue arguing that what you are doing is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, Thanks for bringing this to my attention, but this activity is an example of the dark side of Wikipedia that isn't productive and is best avoided IMO. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Danjel has a fair point - IZAK, what purpose does logging past grievances serve? Delete the lists, move on, and forgive & forget. GiantSnowman 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IZAK, if you have no intention of acting on those issues you documented, keeping a list on Wikipedia amounts to WP:ATTACK. Keep your links offline and you're fine, but just keeping them on display with no intent to file a complaint is not kosher. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have now done so, reluctantly, see below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved in that I commented and endorse viewpoints in opposition to danjel in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche and brought up a questionable use of account danjel, as an editor I strongly suggest you let this go. In the grand scheme of things it's not an explicitly permitted page, however the pot should not be calling the kettle black. I suggest you take your extended wiki-holiday that was in line last month and don't think about what other editors say about you. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Involved similarly to Hasteur, been putting up with Danjel's wrath for some time now): This thread and the RfC need to be closed post haste. This thread is going nowhere; we've largely hashed out these issues in prior spurious ANI discussions. Likewise, there hasn't been significant comment on the RfC for two weeks, it's time to put that puppy to bed. I'm sad that the Danjel retirement thread closed before I could comment. The issue is less that Danjel is making edits while claiming to be retired; the issue is that since the beginning of the RfC, nearly all edits Danjel has made have been in regards to the RfC or ancillary issues, to the point of being disruptive and attacking other editors. I think Danjel's retirement needs to be more mandatory pbp 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of DeFacto

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 new user User:Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, but as the SPI on DeFacto is still open, would someone please shut this account down as he is hitting a large number of artciles. A quick read of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement#Potenetial copyright problem on several articles will show that he is out to cause trouble. The IP accounts [212.183.140.*] and [212.183.128.*] have been blocked, but DeFacto appears to have created this new sockpuppet account. His choice of articles being editged as well as This message is shouting "WP:QUACK".

This is in addition to Hans Adler's earlier request. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a legitimate (sacrificial) alternate account created under the "privacy" option of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Created to advise those in WP:MEASURE to take note of the copyvio highlighted by an IP user, and hidden and denied by some. Nothing more. Woo-ton-woo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no copyvio, you are clearly the same person as the IP, and the IP is clearly identical with the indefinitely blocked User:DeFacto. Now can someone please block this clown? Shouldn't there be admins monitoring this page? Hans Adler 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bsadowski1 has just done the necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Bsadowski1, thanks! Hans Adler 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a mass rollback on the contribs. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits on the various IP pages actually looked slightly helpful to me, but it really doesn't matter. Hans Adler 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Suggest talk page access should be revoked: [232]. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (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.

Noodleki

Noodleki (talk · contribs) has persisted in copyright violations after being warned. For example, his latest edits ([233] [234]) copy and paste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia without attribution. Please refer to User talk:Noodleki for numerous templated and personalized warnings about this—I count 19 of them, 8 of which were made in the past few weeks. We don't have time to check each and every one of his edits, determine which Wikipedia pages or external websites he copied from, and perform the appropriate reverts or {{copied}}/{{copyvio}} tags. (In fact, we're already doing that over at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki for all his edits up to 21 January 2013. We have no desire to check any further ones!) Could I suggest a block until such time as the user demonstrates a willingness and ability to comply with applicable copyright policies and laws?

Incidentally, there are also a lot of recent warnings for edit warring and personal attacks. This edit appears to have triggered the latest warning. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The user was indeffed for copyright violations in September 2012 and unblocked a couple of weeks later per "reasonable unblock request", see log. Presumably an unblock request promising to do better? Anyway, I think it's time to reinstate. Indeffed. (Lovely response to Psychonaut here, too. Very combative user.) Bishonen | talk 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I have asked Kim Dent-Brown, who did the unblock in October, to review. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

This was Noodleki's unblock request from last September, which stands in remarkable contrast to the combative form of words used elsewhere in his/her contribs. It seems to me that Noodleki knows what voice to assume when pleading for an unblock, but forgets that their editing history is viewable, warts and all, when it's time to make a judgement. Good block, I would caution any other admin to beware of honeyed words and leave the block in place. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC

I believe that this ANI thread arose because I had the gall to point out that:

1. User_talk:IZAK#No_good_deed_goes_unpunished;
2. User_talk:IZAK#List_of_recent_discussions_concerning_me_where_I_was_not_informed; and especially
3. User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses (against User:Bob K31416

...are against the policy WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. I asked at User_talk:IZAK#WP:POLEMIC, and you responded with your wikidrama rubbish there, and then here (and I note that you've brought your friends).

It certainly seems that you're not going to remove the content on your talkpages attacking other users on your own, so I'd like to ask that an admin do it for you. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Danjel, now you are here, can't keep up, but as I quite clearly indicated to you, those are not "attack pages" they are a record of official accusations, including a false libel where I was subjected to a "check user" that was quickly deleted, for no reason other than that record stood agisnt you and your friend Bob. Let me repeat what I have stated at my talk page: ...this is just a record on my own talk page of recent events that concern me, and about the various discussions that concerned me that I wasn't even informed about, that I have created a record of for the record. I could have lodged some pretty serious complaints against Bob for not informing me, but I did not wish to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND that you seem to delight in. Stop it! In addition to that, in the course of researching the above lack of basic WP:WIKIQUETTE of informing a user about a discussion that concerns him (me) I also put forth for the record some serious instances where Bob's arguments trying to find support for his WP:POV are rejected by some pretty serious editors including Jimbo Wales. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An official record of accusations, for example your recording that Bob has once been wrongly accused of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bob_K31416; by the way, the difference in the way Bob responded and how you have responded... STUNNING). Sounds like "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" (WP:POLEMIC) to me, which hasn't been used in any dispute resolution process in a "timely manner" since you posted it two weeks ago. But, by all means, continue arguing that what you are doing is not WP:BATTLEGROUND. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, Thanks for bringing this to my attention, but this activity is an example of the dark side of Wikipedia that isn't productive and is best avoided IMO. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Danjel has a fair point - IZAK, what purpose does logging past grievances serve? Delete the lists, move on, and forgive & forget. GiantSnowman 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IZAK, if you have no intention of acting on those issues you documented, keeping a list on Wikipedia amounts to WP:ATTACK. Keep your links offline and you're fine, but just keeping them on display with no intent to file a complaint is not kosher. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have now done so, reluctantly, see below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved in that I commented and endorse viewpoints in opposition to danjel in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche and brought up a questionable use of account danjel, as an editor I strongly suggest you let this go. In the grand scheme of things it's not an explicitly permitted page, however the pot should not be calling the kettle black. I suggest you take your extended wiki-holiday that was in line last month and don't think about what other editors say about you. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• (Involved similarly to Hasteur, been putting up with Danjel's wrath for some time now): This thread and the RfC need to be closed post haste. This thread is going nowhere; we've largely hashed out these issues in prior spurious ANI discussions. Likewise, there hasn't been significant comment on the RfC for two weeks, it's time to put that puppy to bed. I'm sad that the Danjel retirement thread closed before I could comment. The issue is less that Danjel is making edits while claiming to be retired; the issue is that since the beginning of the RfC, nearly all edits Danjel has made have been in regards to the RfC or ancillary issues, to the point of being disruptive and attacking other editors. I think Danjel's retirement needs to be more mandatory pbp 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of DeFacto

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 new user User:Woo-ton-woo is clearly a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, but as the SPI on DeFacto is still open, would someone please shut this account down as he is hitting a large number of artciles. A quick read of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement#Potenetial copyright problem on several articles will show that he is out to cause trouble. The IP accounts [212.183.140.*] and [212.183.128.*] have been blocked, but DeFacto appears to have created this new sockpuppet account. His choice of articles being editged as well as This message is shouting "WP:QUACK".

This is in addition to Hans Adler's earlier request. Martinvl (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a legitimate (sacrificial) alternate account created under the "privacy" option of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Created to advise those in WP:MEASURE to take note of the copyvio highlighted by an IP user, and hidden and denied by some. Nothing more. Woo-ton-woo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no copyvio, you are clearly the same person as the IP, and the IP is clearly identical with the indefinitely blocked User:DeFacto. Now can someone please block this clown? Shouldn't there be admins monitoring this page? Hans Adler 11:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bsadowski1 has just done the necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Bsadowski1, thanks! Hans Adler 11:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a mass rollback on the contribs. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits on the various IP pages actually looked slightly helpful to me, but it really doesn't matter. Hans Adler 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Suggest talk page access should be revoked: [235]. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (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 IP hopping on Robert Fulton

1 2 3 4 5

IPs involved:

164.104.71.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 164.104.71.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 164.104.95.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I suspect a sock - sockmaster currently unknown, but their edit patterns are similar to each other. Two of these have already been blocked for 24hrs by Brookie. - hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected one week and let's see if that IP goes away. Secret ^account 04:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Keithstanton at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo

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.

---

G'day all, could I get some attention to the subject new user/SPA currently doing wholesale deletions regardless of consensus and after gentle advice not to continue? Probably a sock, but unfortunately I am mobile and don't have the access I need to provide the evidence for that. The editwarring alone should be enough for an ARBMAC warning. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The comments are just so ridiculously over the top, it might just be my old community banned sockmaster buddy User:Oldhouse2012, or the other sockmaster that has been active on that page, User:Sinbad Barron. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Hilarious. Almost certainly a sock, and most definitely an exceptionally disruptive user. A checkuser and a ban would be in place.Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm, Keithstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today and is already surprisingly knowledgeable about our policies. Comments such as [236] (severe personal attack) and [237] (WP:BLP violation), as well as the general editing pattern of one-sided advocacy in the WP:ARBMAC area, leads me to believe that an indefinite block might be in order.  Sandstein  13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Indef of this obvious SPA disruptive sock. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello eveyone. First I don't know the actual reason I have been summoned to this crazy discussion by Peacemaker, an editor I have the sincerest respect for and one with who I see eye to eye fully. I understand a few people are threatened that I'm both a new user and someone who is knowledgeable on wikipedia policy. Well I am, I always read the instructions before opening and wikipedia is no different. But let's be truthful, the policies I gave on the voting page to get Persecution of Serbs in Kosovo deleted were mentioned throughout the article anyway. That out the way, I am sorry if my wholesale removal from the article looked disruptive but I never set out to do it. It's just once I started I couldn't stop. for every decision to delete, I gave a summary descritpion and in the end, it left the page empty. OK, I could have left the LEDE but it would have been unsourced and saying nothing true. What I am trying to say is, that page should not have to go through wholesale removals but an admin desperately needs to step in and get it deleted, PLEASE delete it. It is a tool for Serb nationalists like User:Nado158, the biggest one going. He has the cheek to call User:Bobrayner a sock and call him Albanian when the facts are simple. Bob is just good hardworking and neutral editor with high end Balkans knowledge and he rightly points out that in Kosovo, the victims wee "not" Serb but non-Serb, and we all remember the vicious genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity which happened in Kosovo from 1990 to 1999 and I personally witnessed a lot of these as I was serving with KFOR so nobody can tell me differently. I am not a sockpuppet and don't want to be blocked, but please, once and for all, delete Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, I cannot sit by and watch exploitment of Wikipedia by Serb nationalists who spread lies and use blogs for sources. Thankyou for reading. Keithstanton (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Keithstanton (with whom I have never interacted) seems highly disruptive. The warnings given to him seems to have had no effect, and he continues today with deleting sourced content at an alarming pace [238], [239], [240], [241], He never discusses these deletions on the talk pages, and while not involved in any Balkan topic myself, I find his arguments untenable. He deletes multiple sources, including many that fulfill the very highest standards of WP:RS, such as reports from OSCE. I cannot say if he is a sock or not, but he is clearly a disruptive user out to get the WP:TRUTH at all means, including deleting everything he does not like. He continues despite several warnings. Sock or not, he should not edit any article related to the Balkans.Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with a cool-off block for an egregious violation of the normal editing process (WP:ARBMAC). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd hardly call articles from BBC, Reuters, various significant European newspapers blogs. Normally, I would think that someone who has experience or is an expert in a field that they're editing should be given some leeway, but not like this. The article does wander off from the main topic somewhat, at least in some of the versions I've seen, but there's nothing that isn't fixable without wholesale deletion of entire chunks of material. I'd almost call this a WP:COI and as Joy says above, edits in this area are covered by ARBMAC. Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't call them blogs either but what is Balkananalysis? Run by an apologist of the Serbs Chris Deliso. The point is this, there aren't that many sources on the article that use Reuters or BBC and where they do, they never match the claims they are meant to support. The article is packed to the rafters with unattached pieces of gossip some of which have their own articles and others simple cases of everyday street crime, the type you get everywhere. What about David Copeland? Do you know the EDF has indulged in more and worse acts of terror against the nonwhite British community than has been imposed on Kosovar Serbs? And anyway look, I am not doing wholesale removals any more, that has stopped. Keithstanton (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it is getting outright ridiculous. Less than ten minutes after Keithstanton claims above "I am not doing wholesale removals any more, that has stopped." he goes ahead to do further "wholesale removals" at the same page. [242], [243]. In most cases, it would be a WP:NPA violation to accuse someone of blatantly lying, but in this case I think it is justified. Keithstanton is lying about his actions and intentions in this discussion, while continuing his highly disruptive edit-warring. I'm quite frankly surprised that he is able to do this more than 50 hours after the discussion was started, as Keithstanton's action both before and after the report was filed has made it perfectly clear that all the accusations are true. I say this as an uninvolved user who had not had any interaction with Keithstanton nor with the article before the report was filed here at ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

at the very least, could we get a temporary topic ban in place? Then Keithstanton can show he can edit properly elsewhere first. These articles are hard enough to corral inside WP policy/guidelines without mass disruption. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for prompt action by an administrator here? Keithstanton has continued to behave in the same way, per Jeppiz above. I think a block is entirely appropriate given the continued behaviour. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:19, 21 February 2013 (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 2005, repeated personal attacks

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 have asked User:2005 five times in the last few days to stop making personal attacks against me, to discuss content and not people and to conduct himself in a respectful manner and he continues to lash out at me and try to bully me. I ask that he be blocked until he can conduct himself appropriately and in keeping with Wikipedia rules. Please note this user has a long history of this kind of behavior with many editors and is notorious for treating new editors badly and driving them off. Wikipedia shouldn't allow this kind of treatment, regardless of how one may feel about content or another editor.

Diffs: see rude edit summaries: [244] and just a sampling of his latest insults [245] [246] DegenFarang (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see some abrubtness and frustration, but no personal attacks in 2005's edits. I also note that you've filed a (seemingly equally baseless) complaint against another user at AN. Just because people disagree - strongly - with your editing does not mean that they are either hounding or attacking you, and since you seem to be having similar problems with multiple users you might want to take a step back and consider that you may, in fact, be in the wrong. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any comment violating WP:NPA.Jeppiz (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had to point towards the most aggressive user in Talk:Steve Badger (poker player), it would be DegenFarang, to be honest (examples here, here). Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you cited as two examples of me being 'the most aggressive user' me responding to people politely asking them to stop making personal attacks against me? That doesn't make a lot of sense. DegenFarang (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is everyone else, while certainly being abrasive and not as polite and calm as they could have been, commented on specific content related issues, whereas unfortunately you just said "no personal attacks please", which is commenting on the editors rather than what they've done. I'm sure you made those edits with the best of intentions, but the problem that I've found is, if you say this, it actually makes things worse, as the conversation derails onto who was personally attacking who. See WP:NPANPA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"being abrasive and not as polite and calm as they could have been" This is exactly what I'm here to report 2005 for. What can be done about his abrasive style? Surely there is a WP:SOMETHINGSOMETHING which says he's not allowed to do that. DegenFarang (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of different approaches can be undertaken, but my personal choice is, per WP:EOTW, to ignore it. If somebody says "get stuffed" it says more about them than me. If the article gets disrupted, then we can go down the standard dispute resolution channels. In any case, as Yunshui observed, Okay, it wasn't nice that 2005 said Stop vandalizing and get a life, but he said it because he felt you were disrupting the article by removing reliably sourced content, not for no reason whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into this, even if I disagree with your conclusion. Since it appears nothing is going to be done about his behavior - can somebody please help us reach a resolution on Steve Badger. We can't come to consensus on the talk page and each time I try to edit the article he just reverts me. DegenFarang (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel you're going round in circles and getting nowhere on talk, try going to WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody posted on my talk page that I removed one of your edits. This was an accident and I'm not sure how it happened. Sorry about that. Thanks for your help DegenFarang (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Having already observed many disputes by DegenFarang before, I can say that he's the main antagonistic factor in all of them and seems to target 2005 whenever possible. I might agree with some of his edits but it's difficult to act on them due to aggressive defenses. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that 2005 targets me. I don't even follow my watch list, it would be impossible for me to 'target' anybody. The problem is 2005 has basically every poker article on his watch list and feels ownership over all of them. DegenFarang (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Degen has also taken to mudding up AFD with 5 nominations in the span of half an hour of articles created by 2005. (1 2 3 4 5) Toohool (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also worth noting that DegenFarang has been very keen on getting 2005 thrown out for sockpuppetry. Perhaps an interaction ban for the pair of them will solve this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An interaction ban? There is such a thing? PLEASE! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! If ever there was a case where one of those should be enacted, it is between 2005 and I. If that is done - this multi-year problem is solved. I will have absolutely no problem whatsoever abiding by that and would welcome it. DegenFarang (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems as if disagreeing with DegenFarang results in baseless accusations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#WP:Hound, too. Rray (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DegenFarang has been blocked 3 times for harassing editors. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADegenFarang). Surely, constantly accusing editors who disagree with him of making personal attacks is just another type of harassment? Rray (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's very telling Rray - if Elen of the Roads says "not everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet", it's probably worth listening to carefully. DegenFarang, I notice you removed my (imho) helpful and constructive advice here for no reason. Exactly what was the point of doing that? You're digging a big hole for yourself here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that happened and I definitely didn't intend to remove it. As you can see I responded to it and thanked you. DegenFarang (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Rray and Ritchie333. I can find nothing wrong that 2005 would have done, while the behavior of DegenFarang appears rather problematic. DegenFarang was already blocked indefinitely for harassing other users with unfounded accusations, and allowed back only after s/he promised not to repeat this kind of behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a look at the noticeboard and found that DerengFarang filed a complaint about Rray there yesterdat [247], and those who looked into it found it as unfounded as his accusations against 2005 appears to be. This is how I see the situation

• DegenFarang has a long list of blocks for launching unfounded accusations against users with whom he disagrees.
• DegenFarang was blocked indefinitely for this behavior and allowed back only after promising not to repeat it.
• In the last two days, DegenFarang has launched two accusations against two different users with whom he disagrees. Other users have found the accusations unfounded.
  

Based on this, I would say that DegenFarang has broken the promise he gave to have the indefinite block lifted. His actions here, such as deleting a comment by Ritchie333, does not inspire confidence.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Several things you said are incorrect or several years old - but in any event, an interaction ban between 2005 and I would solve the same problem. DegenFarang (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me what is incorrect? Weren't you blocked indefinitely for making unfounded accusations? [248] Did you not make an accusation against Rray yesterday? [249]? And clearly you have made this accusation against 2005 [250]. So do tell us what is incorrect. And why would we impose an interaction ban on 2005 when not one diff of him doing anything improper has been presented?Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your use of the word 'unfounded' or with your statement that 2005 has done 'nothing improper'. You're also intermingling things that happened yesterday and 2+ years go, as if they are all recent. Among other things. I will concede you are a far better wikilawyer than I am, but your overall premise is still largely incorrect. DegenFarang (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. All I can see is a 2 year+ long dispute with DegenFarang filing numerous, baseless reports against 2005 and several other users, be it SPIs, ANs, ANIs or whatever. User:2005 may be abrasive, but that's not a valid reason to block them - heck, I'd have been blocked already if that was the case. From the diffs I've seen, none are bona-fide personal attacks, they just echo a frustration that they, rightly, feel for an age-old dispute being continued. You were indeffed in 2011 for EXACTLY this sort of thing - and from what I can see, this should happen again. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to my comment, what happened to this?

• The points being made to me are that I am at fault for my actions. I acknowledge that completely and have done so numerous times. I understand harassing users is not permitted, no matter what they did to you, and I agree not to do it in the future. I mentioned other users only because Wikipedia is currently seeking ways to prevent new editors from leaving the site and one of the reasons cited was the hostile culture they find when they join. I cited my case as a perfect example of this and thought for that reason somebody may have sympathy for my situation. It still does not excuse my behavior nor does it give me license to continue on the same way in the future. However I think it does give a valid reason to consider the unblock request, if me simply promising to change is not enough. Wikipedia is specifically trying to figure out how to retain users just like me. I'm presenting you with an opportunity to help. If that isn't enough for you because you need to hear me say flat out that I was wrong and I wont do it again and I'm 100% sure of that - I just did. And I have numerous times. I'll say it again: I was wrong. I wont do it again. I'm 100% sure of that. DegenFarang (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's what got you unblocked, why didn't you stick to it? Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Okay, DegenFarang, so you like the idea of an interaction ban between 2005 and yourself. I'd like to hear comment from 2005 first before going down this road, as it's rather unfair to do anything until we get his side of the story. In any case, you need to understand exactly what one is. WP:IBAN has the full lowdown, but in a nutshell it means you have no communication with 2005 whatsoever. If he adds something to a poker article that you don't like, you leave that article well alone - you don't edit it, revert, or discuss his edits on talk. Violating an interaction ban, particularly given your past block history, would pretty much guarantee you get indeffed until hell freezes over. So I'd like you to be really really sure that's what you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure. I only wish I knew of this a long time ago. Nearly all of my blocks have come from interactions with 2005. DegenFarang (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to further clarify, interaction bans are not necessarily two way. If the community decides 2005 hasn't done anything disruptive (and consensus so far is that he hasn't), the ban will be enforced one way, which means he can revert your stuff, but not vice versa. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a two-way interaction ban. DegenFarang (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)DegenFarang

That is not what I am proposing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So you want to give another user carte blanche to edit anything I ever do on Wikipedia and prevent me from ever even speaking that users name again. That's a bit absurd, don't you think? Especially when all of this stems from him reverting my edits? DegenFarang (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We enforce bans to protect the encyclopedia from long term disruption. Given that at least one editor has suggested you be reblocked, I would frankly not look a gift horse in the mouth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have 15,000+ good faith article edits over a broad range of the Wikipedia, primarily in the somewhat contentious area of gambling and poker articles. The big majority of DegenFarang's edits are on talk pages, various ANI and other admin pages, and on articles I've created or contributed to. In the past week or so he has put seven articles that I created up for AfD. I think thay all have been closed now as speedy keeps. He's previously hounded, stalked, attacked, boomeranged, spoken falsely, and threatened me. He has been banned eight times, and has been given at least three "final warnings" each of which he then violated. He clearly is incapable of being a productive editor on any article authored or significantly edited by me. This is due to me unfortunately being the first editor he encountered who reverted some nonsense he was adding from an unreliable "source" to the Amarillo Slim article in January 2009, stating a movie was in the works which actual reliable sources had said was already canceled. While his scorched earth attacks on everything I touch are the majority of his editing, I believe he should be permanently banned based on his additionally history of vandalizing BLPs like John Roberts, just three weeks after the Amarillo Slim incident. The pattern of attacking an article and the editors acting in good faith is on display there too. Here is another example of his blunt BLP vandalism on the Russ Hamilton article. While these other actions are older, they should have led to his banning back then. Currently he has repeatedly called sites like the world series of poker official site and the New York Times "spam", and ripped apart articles before submistting them for Afd. While I would be relieved if he was given an interaction ban to stay away from articles that I have created or am a substantial established contributor, I fear this will just lead to him going after other articles. He should be once and for all permanently banned, but again, giving him an interaction ban is better than allowing him to continue slashing through the current group of articles he is attacking. 2005 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

For the record, I'm disappointed by 2005's expressed tendency to edit war (from what I've seen) rather than to seek dispute resolution before now. But I'll grant that there has been significant provocation over a long period of time. I am more disappointed by the fact that since DegenFarang was unblocked in March of 2012, he never once reached out to me as his "mentor" when he found himself in conflict with another contributor to try to find a way to resolve it amicably. I can't speak for Beeblebrox, but I consider that this was one of his unblock conditions in addition to the promise he made of his own volition that he would "[. . .] disengage completely from interacting with [User:2005]. This should clear up 99% of the problems I had or could have in the future. [. . .] I understand and accept that if I am given another opportunity to edit and have further problems, I'll be blocked forever."

He states above that if there were to be an interaction ban, he "[would] have absolutely no problem whatsoever abiding by that and would welcome it." (Note that abiding by a one-way interaction ban would be in no way different than abiding by a two-way interaction ban from his perspective.) I don't regard myself as a particularly draconian administrator; normally I'd say bring on the interaction ban (or an indefinite topic ban from all poker-related articles, broadly construed). But DegenFarang's history as a tendentious editor is just too long by this point for me to believe that this would have any chance of success. As such, I feel it's my responsibility to reinstate his indefinite block at this time. — madman 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. 2005 isn't perfect, but this has gone on too long: DegenFarang was blocked for this, violated his unblock conditions, was offered a golden chance to get away with it, but didn't take it. I don't think he should be unblocked any time soon. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2013 (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.

Copy-paste tracking

I investigated an new article, Short and long-term effects of alcohol, which included old tags. It is a copy-paste merge of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol, along with some unidentified material. The details are probably moot since I nominated the article for deletion. Further investigation of edits by David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals some troubling patterns. The combination of articles had been attempted before(Warning: many diffs are large pages). The new article was created after the same editing had been undone in another article by another editor for excessive size of the pasted-together material. Part of the bulk was 65K from Alcoholic beverage (diff). Sometimes the same material has been pasted into multiple articles (e.g. look for "477,200" in [251] & [252] & [253]. The repetition makes finding the originals difficult since text searches find the repetitions and the original text may have been removed from the article in which it was created.

A warning against copy-paste moves had been placed on the user talk page in the past, and since I warned against unattributed copy-paste, it has been done again, copying material from Long-term effects of alcohol. As some material has been moved multiple times, I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes and lack the tools to sort out this mess. I'll try to figure out where to drop some {{CWW}} tags, but there is a lot of history to sort through, and I'm hoping that some admins or editors who might have experience with similar situations will be able to offer assistance or guidance.Novangelis (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Short-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the editor has made good and reversed the residual copy-pastes. I can't be sure until the search engines have caught up. Under what conditions will attribution remarks be required (for example, articles where the material was not reversed promptly)? I'd like to finish clearing up this mess.Novangelis (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify for those who might be puzzled about what happened here. (And I writes as someone who is mostly puzzled about most everything.)

Short and long-term effects of alcohol was speedily deleted under WP:G12 as as a copyright violation of Short-term effects of alcohol and other things.

What the... ? How can copying Wikipedia's free content possibly be a copyright violation?

Yep, that's somewhat counter-intuitive. But Wikipedia's content is subject to copyright.

To cut a long story short, copying info from an existing article into another one requires attribution of the copied content. It can be as simple as writing "copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution" in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata: WP:G12 not WP:G11. Moreover, to confirm my account has not been compromised, "O for a Muse of fire", etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article wasn't really a copyright violation (any attribution issues could have been easily resolved e.g. by mentioning on the talk page that "this page has been created as a merger of Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol"), but could be speedily deleted as a duplicate of existing articles (WP:CSD#A10). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata redux: What Mike said.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Another DeFacto sock, quick block required

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

---

For context, see WP:ANI#Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses. and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. The editor is active right now and I am getting tired of following them with rollback. Hans Adler 09:47, 20 February 2013 (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.

Appeal against decision made under Article Probation

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

I was recently topic banned under the above system, but the article in question was then shifted to be covered by Discretionary Sanctions. I have not been told how to appeal against this banning. Can someone tell me how to do this? Rumiton (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You can file an appeal at Arbitration Enforcement. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2013 (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.

Merge of Flag of WS/Flag of the SADR

Hello,

Today I was surprised that Emmette Hernandez Coleman decided after a 1 week discussion where only 3 people participated (2 people agreed and one opposed) to make a major POV editing by merging the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while it took us more than a month discussion (Dec. 2011 to Jan. 2012) to get a consensus following a NPOV RfC, where 14 people participated and the final decision was to give the article a form that matches the core WP:NPOV policy. It was also appalling that Emmette Hernandez Coleman didn't warn people previously involved in the redaction of the article to participate to the Feb.7 2013 discussion.

I ask for a strong reminder to Emmette, to remind her that a non-consensual decision (3 people participated to the discussion, 2 agreeing and 1 opposing) can not take precedence over a long RfC discussion where 14 people participated and which is directly related to a core policy of Wikipedia (WP:NPOV).

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I just discovered that she did the same with Coat of arms of Western Sahara/Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic --Omar-toons (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was unanimous, Reisio neither opposed nor supported. He said "That said, I won't oppose you (and haven’t)". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would have left more feedback were the conversation not so one-sided. Consensus can change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, to describe the situation: The previous NPOV form was decided through:

• a 40+ comments/7 involved users discussion on WP:DRN ;
• a 90+ comments/14 involved users RfC discussion.

Today I discover that a user shorted it following a 6 comments/3 involved users discussion, and this is supposed to be a "consensus"? Please!
--Omar-toons (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm quite tired right now, but I'll give a fuller expectation a shot. It was not a "simple discussion", it was a successful proposed merge. That's about as much a "simple discussion" as a requested move or an RFD is. The result was unanimous. The discussion was left open for at least seven days, the standard length of time for requested moves, XFD's, proposed merge's, etc., during which any of the articles editors were free to participate in it. That other discussion was about a year ago, consensus can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)

Omar, you should've had the thing on your watchlist. It's not like it was some secret plot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A denunciation from Omar-toons should be taken as a sign you may well be unbiased indeed. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and he's already busy raising his army... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you grow up a little bit?

Btw, I just notified people who contributed to the RfC discussion, even those who had an opinion opposed to the mine... just saying :)

--Omar-toons (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quite grown up. You're the one throwing the hissy-fit... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why didn’t you notify me, Omar? Are we not friends‽ ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There were a couple of other editors who weren't notified. I've left notices on the talk pages of everyone who a) took part in the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC, b) wasn't notified, and c) who hasn't commented here yet. (I think I've got everyone, but people should feel free to check if I've inadvertently missed someone out.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do it myself because I am involved, but I think the merge should be undone per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Any merge discussion should have at least as much participation as the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC had. Yes, consensus can change, but there simply wasn't enough participation in the merge discussion for it to count as a legitimate challenge to the RfC result. This is not helped by the fact that participants in the Dec 2011/Jan 2012 RfC were not notified of the merge discussion. I suggest undoing the merge and starting a new, widely publicised merge discussion, with all previous participants receiving notifications. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And you couldn't have started a discussion on Emmette's talk page to work it out before running to drama central, Omar-toons? You made 2 edits, and not even really 2 since the second was just a modification to the first, to the talk page of the article in question then come running here. Seriously, I find it hard to take this seriously when you haven't even made the effort to hammer out the disagreement beforehand. What is appalling is the lack of common sense here. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Blackmane. @Omar-toons - You gotta relax man and feel some wikilove. I understand this is a sensitive topic, and that you've had to deal with some aggressive editors in the past (*cough* *cough* Reisio *cough*), but after initial review it looks like Emmette Hernandez Coleman was acting in good faith here. The correct response to take is talk quietly and politely to Emmette about your concerns BEFORE coming to ANI. I suggest and advise you retract this notification and agree to try to work things out peacefully with Emmette before pursuing further action. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Resurrected (Unfortunately)

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 again being accused of vandalism for no good reason, and having edits reverted. I am curious about something. Is it likely impossible to have an objective, secular version of the Jesus article, because the article is closely watched by Christian editors whose passion (zealotry?) and number are high? At the moment, text has been added with 7 sources, and the editor who added seems to be admitting that he hasn't actually read the sources (not clear on that). The text consists of classifying certain arguments as argument from silence, although none of the sources seem to actually do that. Rather the editor in question (History2007) has researched the arguments (presumably, although it also seems he hasn't read the sources) and decided they are that type of argument. Isn't that OR?

Anyway, I am getting tired of this. History2007 also added a modern translation of a text from the year 1103, and tried to pass it off as a modern source [254]. I deleted that and he had a cow [255]. He doesn't seem to realize that Yifa is a translator, not an author, and the text in question is not about historical method and is almost 1000 years old. He is constantly adding sources he hasn't read.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction Humanpublic (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the editor from my previous complaint (with the impossible-to-remember name), Seb-something, stalked me to another Jesus related article and reverted me there as well. Humanpublic (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Talk does appear to be mildly tendentious. Either way, 'the' Church is shown itself to be perfectly capable of self-advertising over the last 2,000 years and needs no help from Editors... Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a prime case of where the accuser should be the accused. Several users have already suggested that Humanpublic should be topic banned from articles related to Jesus. A look at the talk page (and the archives) shows Humanpublic's record. In the last 24 hours, Humanpublic has repeatedly deleted sourced content he doesn't like [256], [257], [258], [259], [260] in addition to deleting comments on talk pages [261]. Given all those deletions of sourced content, and with no consensus whatsoever, I'd say that there is "good reason" to accuse Humanpublic of vandalism, as three different editors have already done in the last hour [262], [263], [264]. When a fourth and a fifth editor suggest a topic ban [265] [266], I find it quite relevant as the edit history of Humanpublic shows that this is a WP:SPA for the purpose of imposing a POV at Jesus (and the related articles Christ myth theory and Argument from silence) [267]. Last but not least, the favorite accusation Humanpublic makes, that he is a secular editor facing "zealous Christians" is quite simply wrong. I do not believe in the Jesus of the gospels myself. Two of the best known critics of the "Christian Jesus" is the atheist professor Bart Ehrman and the Jewish professor Geza Vermes. We use both of them in the article; both of them state categorically that Jesus existed, as does all other scholars in the field regardless of their religion.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting your comment was an accident: big fingers, laptop keys. I restored it. It's actually the comment I was responding to. Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because content carries a citation doesn't mean it's appropriate to put in an encyclopedia article. In at least one of the edits you list, Humanpublic is removing a "sourced" claim because he alleges that the source doesn't actually support the claim. In another he removes the claim because he argues that it's a non sequitur in the context of the article. In yet another he argues that the text is being used to support some synthesis. Provided his allegations are correct, these are all perfectly valid reasons for removing sourced text and are certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a source is not automatically a reliable one. Basket _Feudalist 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Have either of these editors discussed these arguments on the respective article talk pages? The "source doesn't support the claim" one in particular should be very easy to test, and the onus for doing so is on whoever added the content. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And congratulations on Psychonaut for hitting the nub there: Talk:Argument from silence was last edited... 7th April 2011...!!! Basket _Feudalist 18:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP here looks like a single-purpose account with an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Pscyhonaut and Basket, a source is not automatically suited. Then Humanpublic could perhaps assume good faith and discuss the issue at the talk page instead of edit warring over it? As for discussing, I already referred both to Humanpublics edit record [268] and to the talk page (including the archives, far too many diffs to make a list) where several users have pointed out for months that Humanpublic does not WP:HEAR arguments. As Basebnall Bugs states above, Humanpublic is a single-purpose account with an agenda, the agenda being to advance the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. There is not one professor in any relevant field, no matter if they are Christians, atheists or Jews, who support that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE. I agree when Humanpublic says the article Jesus should be a secular article, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs (most scholars agree Jesus did not claim to be God or think he was God; most scholars think a number of accounts in the New Testament were forged; many scholars think Jesus was a religious Jew all his life; many scholars think Christianity was the invention of Paul decades after Jesus's death). We should take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be.Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop saying I think Jesus never existed. I don't think I've ever said that, and I am agnostic on it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it time for administrators to earn their paycheck? This is an admin forum. If I'd thought being a minority critic of a dominant religion was a road to progress, I would've stay on the Talk page. I thought administrators were going to carefully research the issues and provide neutral guidance and/or intervention. Isn't that what this page is for?

• • For example. What is the point of the labor of providing the diffs and links to the dispute, if nobody researches the dispute. I did not merely assume History2007 didn't read the sources. He admitted he copied the sources and text wholesale from another article. This is the text in Christ myth theory:

Some arguments from silence go back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[87] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[88] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[89] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[89] .... In general, an argument from silence cannot be definitive, however it is not a fallacy and generally is the correct inference. [93][94][95] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[96] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[97] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[98][99]

And this is what he inserted into Jesus:

The argument from silence that that lack of sources indicates that Jesus did not exist goes back to John Remsburg in 1909 who commented on the silence of Philo of Alexandria.[258] Remsburg stated that Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until the middle of the first century, but wrote nothing of the birth or death of Jesus.[259] Van Voorst points out that although Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate in Embassy to Gaius (c. 40 CE), he did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty.[260] However, he adds that a possible explanation is that Philo never mentions Christians at all, so he had no need to mention their founder.[260] In general, an argument from silence can not be definitive and may be questionable, given the circumstances in which it is made.[261][262] In an overall context, scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[263] Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[264] Moreover, arguments from silence also apply in the other direction, in that in antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[99][249]

It is this, AND that he added 7 book-length academic sources in less than 20 minutes, AND that he refuses to answer a simple question about whether he read the sources AND that he (patronizingly) announces he has no obigation to quote what in the sources actually supports his edits that make me think he hasn't read the sources and is generally disruptive. What the Hell is my AGF violation? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor if he read a source? Is it a violation of AGF to ask an editor to provide the source text that supports his edits? I didn't quote all this text initially, because I assumed this forum is for careful research of disputes and diffs would suffice to inform people, not just popularity contests. Obviously I was wrong.

If you're going to tell me this is the wrong place for content disputes, maybe you could tell me the right place. As far as I can tell, minority opinions can lose popularity contests on Talk pages, or they can lose them here, and that's how "dispute resolution" works. Who actually enforces the rules with some care and research and integrity???? Humanpublic (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Admins earn every dime they make.

I hope you're not suggesting that Admins are worth every dime they make Basket _Feudalist 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• This forum is not for content disputes, you can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC.
• Wikipedia operates by consensus, so in some sense it is a popularity contest, but it's not a simple one. More like a weighted by ineffable coefficients popularity contest. NE Ent 16:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look at the links you gave, but if everything is a popularity contest, how is the encyclopedia going to be objective about Jesus?

History2007 is now deleting the U. Mass history department as a source, saying the history dept. isn't reliable on historical methods. And, he is replacing it with a dictionary of foreign terms, which he admits he hasn't read (I am assuming nothing here--he stated he hasn't read it). [269], [270]. Humanpublic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Humanpublic, you're vendetta against History2007 is starting to look silly. You suggested a topic ban on History2007 for no reason other than your personal suspicion he had not read a couple of books [271]. You started this thread to accuse History2007 of being a Christian zealot for not agreeing to implement your POV [272]. After History2007 mentioned his interest in Argument from silence, you went straight there to edit war with him [273]. These are all highly disruptive edits, and unfortunately very characteristic of your behavior here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic ban for Humanpublic

* If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are NOT INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE'.[2] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments. *In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a CONSENSUS OF UNINVOLVED EDITORS not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".[274]. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In line with In ictu oculi [275] and ReformedArsenal [276], I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Jesus. As pointed out by Baseball Bugs [277], Humanpublic is "a single-purpose account with an agenda".
Since September, Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed. That was perfectly valid as first, but it has long since passed into disruptive behavior. As has been pointed out to Humanpublic time and time again by countless users, there is not one professor in any relevant field supporting that fringe theory, making it WP:UNDUE.Of course the article should be secular, and that means respecting the academic expertise, especially when that expertise is unanimous. There are countless examples of where the secular view contradicts Christian beliefs and we take into account all such theories, and present different views on the many questions where there are different views. The topic of Jesus's existence quite simply isn't one of those questions. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has used the talkpage to challenge Jesus's existence. Since September 2012, Humanpublic has been asked to provide an academic source that doubts Jesus's existence. And since September 2012, Humanpublic has failed to provide a single source, instead he has just continued his crusade to impose this fringe theory on the article. That is the single purpose of his account, it is disruptive, and it makes working on the article a lot harder than it should be. When a user just continues to challenge other users, refusing to WP:HEAR counter-arguments, never once bothering with a source but only to present his own opinions, it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. After five months of this, it certainly disrupts the article quite severly. A quick look at the talk page of Jesus is enough to see that most of the discussions are about Humanpublic, not about how to improve Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) UPDATE In response to a surprising number of comments on the matter, I want to state right away that this nomination is based on Humanpublic being a disruptive user. I'm forced to add this since some people comment on completely irrelevant aspects. I did not nominate Humanpublic for doubting Jesus's existence, nor did I nominate him for mainly editing article related to Jesus. The nomination rests exclusively on the disruptive behavior by Humanpublic and nothing else.END OF UPDATE.

• Update Since I posted the request for a topic-ban for Humanpublic, he some user with an interest in the page appears to have launched a sockpuppet [278] with several highly disruptive edits [279], [280], [281], [282].Jeppiz (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

" Humanpublic repeatedly engages in endless discussions on the talk page of Jesus to deny that Jesus existed." Hmm, I don't think I have ever denied Jesus existed. Not sure. Humanpublic (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We do not ban users just because they come to Wikipedia for a single purpose. We do ban them for being persistently uncooperative to the point of disruption, but I don't see that there have been sufficient prior attempts at dispute resolution. There was one 3RR report which seemingly didn't go anywhere, and for at least one of the issues Jeppiz is complaining about there was no attempt whatsoever to engage with the user on the article talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I certainly did not suggest topic-banning Humanpublic for being here for a single purpose; I (like two other users today) suggested topic-banning him because he goes about that purpose in a highly disruptive way. He has singlehandedly turned the talk page about Jesus into a WP:FORUM where he refuses to WP:HEAR any counter arguments and continues to push a fringe-theory despite not having presented a single source for it. For five months. That is disruptive and detrimental to the article, and that is the reason a topic-ban is suggested.Jeppiz (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

How am I misrepresenting what you wrote? You said that he should be topic banned, and started off by noting that he was "a single-purpose account with an agenda". If this claim is not relevant to your proposal, then why did you mention it? Your argument also rests on the disruption he's caused, and my !vote addressed that issue as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess the question is what we mean by disruption. Can a user by disruptive just on talk pages, or does it have to take edit warring over articles? Looking at the talk page of Jesus, I would say it's clear that the actions of Humanpublic disrupts work on the whole article. Anyone can at time pose irrelevant questions, but when the same user does it for five months, is informed about it by countless users, and still goes on and on in the same track, I think it's a disruption of WP:NOTAFORUM. I think it's clear to anyone having a look at Talk:Jesus that Humanpublic has succeeded in turning the page into a forum. If he had a valid point backed up by sources, it would be a content dispute and not a problem. When he spends months pushing a fringe theory without bothering with presenting even one source but only his personal opinions (and the same opinions over and over again), I do think it's disruptive and I have seen first-hand how he has stalled any work on the actual article. If you don't agree that such behavior is disruptive, I fully respect that view.Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, but Psychonaut never said they were disputing the behaviour could be disruptive, simply they felt insufficient attempts were made to at dispute resolution first. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Naw, we can handle the user w/o that. If it gets any worse, then yeah... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There are some problems here, as I see it. On first glance (this is the first time I have looked at this article and talk page) I see why the issue has been brought here by parties on both sides of the fence. One thing I can't help notice on the talk page is the confrontational polemics of HiLo48, the subject of several correctional sanctions. But here's where it get complicated. Humanpublic and HiLo48 raise an interesting point in that the editing of the article appears to be POV material from those of the Christian faith, and call into question the sourcing of Jesus' existence. Highly controversial! But, is that a "disruption?" While I am unfamiliar with Humanpublic, HiLo48 often uses rhetoric that usually "stirs the pot." Yet, here again, there are some larger NPOV issues now on the line for this flagship Wikipedia article. I am unwilling to take a stand without further study of exactly what the stakes are. And I suggest others here do the same. Jusdafax 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A good and balanced post. I am sure we all agree that the article should not be edited with a Christian POV. When Humanpublic and HiLo48 first made that point, I don't think anyone objected - nor do I object to it now. Quite the contrary, I welcome it. However, there is nothing "Christian" in stating that Jesus existed. It is an uncontroversial fact, supported by all scholars in the field who have published on the matter. Not by most scholar, but by all scholars. That makes that issue a fairly simple one, if we want to adhere to WP:RS. That is why people have asked Humanpublic and HiLo48 for sources, and have asked for sources for months. And that's why Humanpublic and HiLo48 have failed to produce any sources. In my view, that pretty much settles it. If all professors on the matter (including those who aren't Christian at all, even those who have been called anti-Christians) believe that Jesus existed, then the article should state so. And I do think that when somebone continues beating the same horse for five months, it is at least tedious, and if done excessively, also disruptive. So once again, there is nothing disruptive in challenging a Christian POV, there is nothing disruptive in presenting alternative theories if backed up with sources, and there's nothing disruptive in discussing any point of the article in good fait. But surely repeating the same fringe theory for five months when not able to find a single source can look disruptive?Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a fine spirit of collaboration: "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want as long as there's good reason to do so. Further posts by you to my talkpage will be considered harassment and reverted as vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556"

I would love to not be an "spa". I registered on Wikipedia intending to edit literature articles. My interest in the Bible comes from a Bible as Literature class I took. I have added two sentences to the article Jesus. It is a purely factual edit, reliably sourced. It has nothing to do with any theory, fringe or otherwise. It is: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him. [256]" THat's it. It is reliably sourced, and only makes factual claims. In Talk, I've pointed out that there are no secular historians as sources, that sources mostly have a Christian background and/or write popular books, and that Christian popular books aren't objective about Jesus. That is not a fringe theory either. To me, it's just a concern about conflict of interest.

The result has been that my comments have been edit-warred off the Talk page, my attempts to preserve my comments have been called vandalism, I've been reported for "3RR" for not wanting active discussions archived, accused of disruption, been followed to another article by Seb for the sole purpose f reverting my edit, and been nominated to be banned from the articles.

If my edits to The House of Mirth [283] had the same response, I would appear to be a Edith Wharton "spa." This is not my only interest. It is my only controversial interest. People should quit attacking and belittling by the dozens at the mere suggestion that there could conflicts of interest, or the mere addition two sentences that are not pro-Jesus. If I didn't get bombarded by dozens of attacks and personal comments with every edit, I would be spending more time on other subjects. Humanpublic (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't pay detailed attention to this page, mainly since it's generalist and had a relatively stable equilibrium, but the Talk has been beeping like crazy on my watchlist recently, and so looked at the beeping. The Talk comment "support topic ban" was predictive - that's where this is going to end. One edit to an Edith Wharton page does not a non-SPA make, the much trumpeted edit to the Jesus article lead here changing reliable scholar Bart Ehrman's interview on Jesus-mythicists "There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments. I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong." to User:Humanpublic "There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him." (period) wouldn't of itself be a problem if acres of Talk page bytes hadn't been trying to explain to User:Humanpublic why that isn't good processing from source to high-profile article lead copy. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Talk, too much of being an evangelist for the WP:TRUTH. The rest of the editors on that article (of whom I'm not one) deserve a couple of weeks' rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He's a single-purpose account here to get The Truth out. His chosen topic doesn't really make a difference. It may not quite be time for a topic ban, but that's what will happen if he keeps on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support His editing in the area is disruptive. I would have opposed per the comments above; however, his back at you ban proposal below doesn't leave me confident that he intends to edit productively in the area. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless somebody can produce DNA evidence of Jesus's existence. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

sigh The comment above is completely besides the point. Humanpublic is not reported for doubting Jesus's existence, he is reported for being disruptive. One can be right and be disruptive, and one can be wrong and still civil.Jeppiz (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Per Baseball Bugs, Humanpublic is an obvious WP: SPA who uses polemical tactics (example would be the purely retaliatory topic ban proposal below) to push his specific WP: POV. Given that incidents have arisen in the past, I think a bit of fresh air would do Humanpublic good, and would prevent further escalation of this controversial topic. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a lot of manure flying around here. It's not just History2007's last 500 edits that are mostly Christian (and 100% Biblical). I went back 2000 edits. They are 99% Biblical. Then I went back to his first 500 on Wikipedia, 6 years ago. They are 99% Biblical. Who's the SPA??
• Kudos for the thought that "Whoever proposes a topic ban first, wins!!!!!" Banning the one who proposed second--he loses!!--is classy. Gee, I have a proposal. Let's have a level of intelligence that goes beyond 4th grade.
• I am shocked, shocked, that those who were absolutely certain about sock puppetry are the same as those who are absolutely certain about the SPA and absolutely certain that being 2nd with a ban proposal means "you lose" and absolutely certain nothing critical of Jesus belongs on Wikipedia. Nothing fishy there. Gotta love it. 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• In response, I would like to say taht I have known History2007 for some time, and I have found that his own motives and behavior are more or less the same as mine. There are a number of other topics he would be possibly more interested in developing the content we have on, but he is very knowledgable of the topic of early Christianity, and is finding himself almost exclusively editing material on that basis for the purposes of ensuring that the content meets wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, yeah, I myself started with WikiProject Biography, and would personally prefer to be spending time on content regarding the smaller and less "glamorous" nations and regions of the world. If the IP is accusing History of putting wikipedia's good before his personal interests, I agree with that. If he is saying that is to be held against him, he is drawing conclusions based on no real knowledge of the subject whatsoever. We praise and thank people for working for the good of the project, we don't criticize them, or worse, seek to sanction them. Honestly, I tend to think that the IP's comment does not itself necessarily indicate an intelligence that goes even as high as the 4th grade level. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as much for the WP:POINTy topic ban proposal below as for his poor behaviour on the Jesus article. I don't think Jesus existed; I'm certainly not going to try and insert that sort of POV (or anything similar) to the Jesus article: in fact, it's why I stay away from religious articles, apart from when attempt to sort out a content dispute. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If the idea is that being an SPA justifies banning, then apply the principle equally. Based on the links above History2007 is more of an SPA than Humanpublic. I also had a similar experience with History2007: deleting my references, inserting his own, not really understanding the purpose of my references, and then not explaining what text in the book he cited he was actually using. I wouldn't support banning him either, but he did come off as condescending.Strangesad (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: Any atheist trying to win a popularity contest must be young. Strangesad (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support at least a firm warning Humanpublic is disruptive; the arguments have been gone over time & again, and Jesus myth theory covers the material well. Time for him to edit on something else, if he is interested in doing so. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy forbids those actively involved. You not only edited the article, you edited HP's edit. You are involved. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update a couple of violations of WP:NPA by Humanpublic, further underlining his disruptive behavior [284].Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, this request has very thin legs, the diffs provided does not justify a topic ban, at least not now, even if now Humanpublic will surely have extra-eyes on him. It would be obviously different if the sockpupping accusations did not resulted in a hole in the water. Cavarrone (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Strangesad. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Humanpublic is continuing personal attacks - calling one user "dishonest"[285] and another "a turd" [286]. I do not like to campaign to get people blocked or banned, but something needs to be done to stop Humanpublic's battleground behaviour, which appears to be escalating.Smeat75 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support based on habit of disruptive editing, although I would have reservations about making the ban indefinite. I would tend to support one of up to a year. If Humanpublic would rather be working on other content, as he said above, I think it is probably time that he does so. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy forbids voting by those involved. You are arguing content on Talk:Jesus, you argued it here, and you are an active editor of closely related articles. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban now. A few days ago I specifically came against a topic ban for this user, given no proper warning, and suggested a warning instead. But now, I see no other way. He continues to hold that policy is silly and he can insult other editors at will. And that is after multiple warnings. Think of it this way: this user has done 180 edits in 6 months and has been involved in more brouhahas than many users get involved in after 18,000 edits. This is not a good start and will just get worse if he is encouraged to go rampant and walk over policy at will. I think user:Der Kommisar's characterization of the situation as WP: NOTHERE (just below here) is valid. History2007 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the rules. You are not allowed to vote. Strangesad (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere, I thought I read that only uninvolved editors voted on bans. That would exclude you, if I remember right. Strangesad (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1 This is not a vote. #2 There is no policy or practice which states involved editors cannot participate in ban discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.[2] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.
• In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".[287]. Strangesad (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties may comment (no gag order), but given that it is "not a vote" at the close, their support will not be factored into the final decision. That is all. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I also notice that Hmanpublic made the "turd" comment linked to above on in his user talk page after having been given a final warning regrding personal attacks in that same section of his talk page. I believe that there is probably sufficient cause for a short term block regarding that as well, and I do not see that such a block at this point would inhibit him from providing information regarding this proposed topic ban of him. John Carter (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Sadly, as with many complaints brought here, this is really a content dispute. Humanpublic is a firm defier of the massive majority of conservative editors who tend to "own" the articles where he has upset people. He's a nuisance. He challenges mainstream thinking (like Jesus did). They want him silenced. It would be interesting to see what was left if every content related post was removed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sadly, the above comment seems to completely ignore much of the material presented here, by someone who himself has a rather obvious and longstanding record of engaging in disruptive edits and personal attacks, neither of which can even remotely be considered acceptable conduct even if there is a content dispute involved. I cannot see how calling someone a "turd" falls in the field "content dispute," for instance. The evidence is rather clear that Humanpuclic cannot abide by conduct guidelines regarding this subject, and we in general do not allow those who have difficulties adhering to guidelines to determine when and where they are applicable. John Carter (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Exactly. The fact that Humanpublic often challenges people does not excuse his disruptive behavior. In fact, it rather reinforces reasons for a block, being that most of these "challenges" are actually personal attacks and WP: TE behavior. Such !votes made by Humanpublic's supporters require a grain of salt when being read. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that calling someone a turd isn't nice. If that was tackled on its own, all would be well, but again, just as with most threads begun against people with non-mainstream views, this has become a dumping ground for all the shit anyone has ever wanted to pour on the target. While there is any crap in this thread that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail. The behaviour of ALL those wanting to censure someone for poor behaviour MUST be better than the person they want to silence. Many posts here fail that test. The attack should fail. You need to show a better choice of friend. Being on the same side of a debate as you must never excuse bad behaviour. Condemn the bad behaviour of those on your side of the debate, and I will respect your position more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, with all due respect, your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval. You appear to be making a statement that if a person makes a single mistake, then the person who makes a thousand or more mistakes cannot be sanctioned unless the person making a single mistake is also sanctioned. That premise is illogical on the face of it. No one is perfect, and we do not expect them to be. But Humanpublic's behavior is not only imperfect, it seems to rarely if ever recently rise to acceptable level, and that refusal to engage in conduct of an acceptable nature is in and of itself grounds for sanctions. And, unfortunately, I think even the facts themselves disagree with you on this point. Around here, tbe mainstream view regarding Christianity, and Jesus in general, is more generally seen as being your own lack of belief, not the contrary. Also, there are policies and guidelines, like WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which all should adhere to. And, honestly, if anyone were to hold you personally to your own position "if there is any crap .l.. that shouldn't be here, the whole thing should fail," I tend to think that "fail" is exactly what your own comments would do. John Carter (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John Carter's Talk page: "Around here I try to help out some of the religion based projects, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, where I am one of the coordinators...." John Carter, please give diffs of Humanpublic's disruption on Talk:Jesus. I see a single addition he has made to Jesus, which is factual, not a fringe theory, and sourced (and currently deleted). The "turd" comment is juvenile. It was made on his Talk page, in response to juvenile taunting by another editor. I see a lot people shooting themselves in the foot. Humanpublic isn't helping his cause. Your distorted drama-queening conduct isn't helping yours. Strangesad (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I have struck some of my provocative comments that throw fuel on the fire. Strangesad (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

e/c And therein lies the difference between HiLo and Humanpubic. HiLo has also discussed many similar content issues, and presented arguments against myself in many cases, but he has been logical as far as I have seen, despite our wide differences in content. I have personally defended HiLo against attempts to even warn him, let alone block him, and I have made it clear to him on his talk page that in my view he is a good editor. These two editors have very similar views on content but dramatically different approaches to editing. Therein lies the difference between them. This is not a content issue. History2007 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You nailed it; I'd often defend HiLo, but not Humanpublic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks guys (the last two of you), but did you notice the completely off-topic, inflammatory bullshit thrown at me by John Carter three posts up? To make sure it gets seen, he said, about me, "your conduct itself is of such a nature that I very seriously doubt anyone actually actively wants or seeks your approval". It's precisely that sort of tangential, unverified crap that gets posted in these attack threads. So, where's the thread now to censure John Carter. And I'm not joking. So long as these threads are seen by so many, often the self proclaimed "good" Christians, to abuse and bad mouth others, with a seeming complete immunity from any consequences, the Wikipedia discipline process is an absolute disaster. And don't come back to me telling me to stay on topic. I will edit here to the best of my ability, totally objectively. Prejudiced editors like Carter above abuse and damage Wikipedia continuously, all with the goal of pushing their conservative religious POV, and never seem to get into trouble. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to start another thread, go ahead. I am ultimately here because Humanpublic dragged me here, not the other way around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, please calm down. There is no evil anti-Christian or anti-Atheist (whichever you belong to) cabal that John Carter leads. If there was such a group, rest assured they would be disbanded by the admins here. Making borderline WP: PAs and denouncing policy is a fast road to a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's a silly comment too. You're the first person to use the word cabal here. I know that because I just searched for it to find this stuff in the Edit window. I am a member of no cabal, and you suggesting I am is surely unacceptable. I obviously made no suggestion that John Carter is a member of any cabal (since you're the only one to have used that word). So I don't know what nonsensical background there is to your post. I came here today to point out that this is a content dispute (IMHO). John Carter has smeared me with references to alleged sins elsewhere. I responded (maybe I shouldn't have) by pointing out that he was way out of line. Now I'm being told I'm the one making personal attacks! Don't you get it? It's the awfully nice Christian, John Carter, who just can't behave in a Christian way, who you should be criticising here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably I should not make a comment like this here, but cannot restrain myself - the repeated insinuations on this thread that anyone who supports the accuracy of a statement such as "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" must be a fundamentalist conservative Christian are ab-so-lute-ly ri-dic-u-lous.Smeat75 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A criticism of an alleged insinuation, with no names and no indication of where and when. What a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Although i agree Humanpublic should be blocked for personal attacks, i have rarely seen a topic ban for an insult. Pass a Method talk 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the personal attacks he has made after warnings call for a short term block, as stated below. But the larger picture goes far beyond that issue: Here is a user with 180 edits, 20% to articles, i.e. 36 article edits. And there may be over 3,600 edits here dealing with the consequential turbulence. For every article edit made, there are 100 consequential edits that could have been put to better use. This is no way to develop an encyclopedia. Look at this user. She has written more DYK articles than anyone remembers (over 200 DYKs I think) and how much mayhem has she brought about? None at all. That is the kind of user who builds the encyclopedia, not one who starts this type of lengthy drama in 3 acts. Not to mention the counter-productive atmosphere created by the personal attacks. This is not a good start and can not continue in this way. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is too much WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior going on from multiple editors. This started out as a misplaced content dispute, and has turned into a mud flinging contest. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre actions by Strangesad

Strangesad, who opposes a topic-ban, has taken to striking out comments by several users who had expressed support for the topic ban. [288]. He claims it's because they are involved, which leads to two questions.

• 1. Is is true that no user who has had the slightest involvement can express their opinion?
• 2. If there is such a policy, how come Strangesad strikes out comments from only marginally involved users if they expressed support, but leaves intact comments from even heavily involved users if they agree with Strangesad and opposed?
  

This practice by Strangesad looks truly odd. Also a bit surprised to see him insert a comment at the very top, especially as it does not seem to say what he claims, that nobody can express an opinion if they have had any interaction with the topic [289]Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

technically Strangesad is correct that policy forbids those invokved from voting. What they failed to point out is it also forbids those uninvoled from voting. We do not vote for topic bans or most things on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Apparently Strangesad doesn't. And the fact that he only took out comment he disagreed with shows a pretty clear bias. I undid his striking of other users' support as it's not justify by any policy.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say the uninvolved are prohibited from voting? Consensus is determined, as practical matter, by voting, and involved editors aren't allowed to vote in that process. Jeppiz is hardly "marginally involved, neither is History2007, and Johnbod edited HPs edit. I didn't strike comments, only the vote itself. Strangesad (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How many times do we need to tell you? This is not a vote It is a discussion where people express their opinions, but it is not a vote. At least three users have already pointed that out to you. And no, I'm not marginally involved, I'm heavily involved. As are some users who support the topic ban and some who oppose. You struck out only comments of those with whom you disagree. The point is, it is not for you to strike out the comments of anyone.Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strangesad, striking out any other person's comments is incredibly inappropriate. I think this deserves an official warning by an admin. Involved editors are fully allowed to express their opinions, otherwise, how the hell can non-involved editors work out people's motives? Lukeno94 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Both striking out user comments with which he disagrees and making talk page comments of this kind [290] makes me wonder if Strangesad is WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be put out of its misery. No action is likely, all that happens is that it wastes time. Let us just drop it and all go on and get a life. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User conduct, not content

I feel that this discussion has gotten sidetracked numerous times, and I just wanted to reiterate that AN/I is meant to focus on user conduct. Content disputes like the ones that has riddled this thread should go to WP: DRN. Frankly, the OP's conduct so far has been appalling: the extremely WP: POINTy topic ban proposal, WP: EDITWARring over his additions ([291], [292], [293]), WP: FORUMSHOPping ([294]), and not to mention WP: PAs made by User: Humanpublic ([295], [296], [297]) to top it off. This thread is starting smell strongly of WP: BOOMERANGs. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post here regarding continued personal attacks, but you have already stated it. As I stated at the end of this page, the continued personal attacks by this user after multiple warnings by various editors (and his clear declaration on his talk page that he does not intend to stop insults because policy is silly) makes it impossible to continue interacting with him without suffering insults. This is enough. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Since a significant number of people here approves of it, you will either have to put up or leave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not have to put up with it. I will not. WP:NPA is policy, and I expect it to be respected. Any administrator can issue a short term block here to stop these continued insults given the multiple warnings, else the WP:NPA policy will be declared invalid as a defacto standard. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang is right.... you complained I brought a content dispute here, and now that I've moved it to a dispute-resolution page, you complain that I am [FORUMSHOP] (is there anything anybody can do that can't criticized with an acronym?). I was repeatedly called a vandal for non-vandalism, and called extremely dishonest twice, and now that I've once said History2007 was "being dishonest" suddenly my behavior is "appalling" and I should be blocked. Seb snidely suggested I am self-important and told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then repeatedly antagonized me on my Talk page. History2007 copy and pasted a big pile of sources from one article to another without quoting any of them, and when I asked if he had read all of them and if he could quote them, I was attacked for violating another acronym (AGF). I have never reverted an edit to Jesus more than once, but now I am edit-warring.... I have about 500 edits, and have been editing 6 months, while History2007 has been editing 6 years with thousands of edits and almost all of them are about the Bible, but I'm an SPA (how many damn acronyms are there?). If you actually brought some integrity to your presence and criticised all sides equally, I might listen and learn to what you have to say. We seem to all agree this thread is going nowhere. Personally, I don't see how its content-dispute to expect editors to document that thier sources support what is claimed, but apparently I'm in the minority. Humanpublic (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am just very tired of the he is all Bible repetitious statement. I must have been looking for Heaven here, was super exhausted here and developed fatigue here. Again, you must stop focusing on editors and discuss content on talk pages and stop personal attacks. That is policy, as you have been told, many, many times now; yet continued to disregard it. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per Smeat above, Humanpublic's WP: BATTLEGROUND mentality suggests he is WP: NOTHERE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the worst thing that's been said here "You're being dishonest"? By many involved parties? I work in a middle-school. This has reminded me of work. Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry it does not work that way. User A says X, user B can then say Y = X+delta and it can quickly escalate to deep insults if any personal attacks are allowed. That is why there is a policy. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Baron Master", probable sockpuppet of Humanpublic

Checked. Unrelated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hope it's not bad faith, but I fear this edit may be related to the discussion of a topic ban for Humanpublic [298]. Humanpublic has spent days complaining about a Christian POV on Jesus and Christ myth theory, so when his disruptive actions are discussed here at ANI and a new user turns up to make his very first edit on Talk:Jesus to make a sarcastic complaint about Christian POV and follows up with Christ myth theory well, it's hard to be in good faith. Could I suggest a sock-puppet test on 'Baron Master'?Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Obvious WP: QUACK. I'm not sure if CheckUser would even be needed at this point. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comment Obvious disruptive sock.--JOJ Hutton 01:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I took a look since I thought it was a bit odd that Baron would show up like that, but they are almost certainly  Unrelated. J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) If Baron Master wasn't enough, now they have moved on to trolling using an IP. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban for History2007

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

---

This editor is adding sources that he hasn't read:

"History2007: Have you read the sources you added? Please provide the specific text you are citing, so other editors can assess it. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

" Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response.

"Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)" No response

He is adding sources from books, and mocking editors (me) who ask him to provide the text being used to support the claim. "Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. ... History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (See also: ""What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Disruptive_edit_to_introduction

He adds sources without reading them--he admits he copied them from another article. He refuses to work cooperatively when asked to document that the source backs the claim. He is disruptive. Humanpublic (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question What offence do you feel History2007 has made, which policies do you think he has broken that you want to see him topic-banned? Is this a WP:POINT in reply to the discussion about you above?Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"He adds sources without reading them." — you better prove that or retract the whole thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Judging from Talk before after edits it looks that History2007 was badgered into providing some copy to present a topic that Humanpublic demanded, and then Humanpublic didn't like it, could be wrong but that's what it looks like. In any case the above "Topic Ban for History2007" is a misdirected case of tit-for-tat. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is mostly a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - We do not issue topic bans based on content disputes. If History2007 has violated a specific policy or guideline, you haven't made it clear. I won't be validating this one with an oppose. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not based on the link "POINT" that you gave. I'm not frustrated with how a policy is being applied. I really think that anybody who persists in adding sources he hasn't read, and adding sources and refusing to document that they support the claims made, should be sanctioned in some way. I assume that breaks a rule, but can't point you to the "statute." As I said, this is the only controversy I've been involved in, so I don't know the ropes. Frankly, History2007 seems like an "spa" to me as well.His last 500 edits are all about Christianity [299]. Not true of me.... Humanpublic (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's made some Islam-related edits. But, 90% of his edits for the last 6 years are Bible-related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.38.119 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban and support warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban. Incidentally, there were many nasty remarks made to HumanPublic that I have personally witnessed Nashhinton (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And were those "nasty remarks" made by History2007? If so, please provide diffs of History2007 making nasty remarks about Humanpublic. If not, what's the relevance?Jeppiz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The rule violation is OR, as I said initially. Analysing or researching an argument, and then classifying it as an argument from silence (or any other argument type), is OR. I assume there is a rule against adding sources you haven't actually read. I assume that there is a rule requiring editors to document that the sources support their claims. If those rules exist, then he is violating those rules.[300] Anyway, I'm off to other destinations for the rest of the day. Humanpublic (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT might be pertinent here, in particular the sentence which says, "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." I am unconvinced that violation of this minor guideline is enough to warrant a topic ban (and a topic ban from which articles, exactly?), and this is still a pointless discussion. The SPA accusation should be supported with evidence or redacted, per WP:NPA. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and also support a warning for Humanpublic for failing to AGF and for not working out content disputes on the article talkpages instead of here. Heiro 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban for History2007, a highly knowledgeable user who not only scrupulously observes wikipedia policy but patiently spells them out to every POV fringe theory pusher who appears on the pages under discussion. For this he gets called a "zealot" by Humanpublic [301], which in my opinion borders on a personal attack.Smeat75 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and warn Per LGR, Heiro and above discussions, topic ban has no merit and is purely proposed out of bad faith. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. Humanpublic, you're actually talking yourself deeper into your hole, as you can now see the first support-!votes for your topic ban; if you continue down this road, there will be more people willing to ban you. You've been told before that it is policy that "verifiable" does not mean that people need to quote passages of text to you and present them to you as the gatekeeper. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Go get the books in question, open them at the indicated page, and read for yourself. Assuming that others haven't read them is about as offensive as assuming your request is based your own illiteracy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose History2007 is a good and alert editor, who's really keen at using reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal violates either WP:POINT or WP:AGF or both, and inclines me to strike my !vote opposing the proposed topic ban of User:Humanpublic above. Both of you need to start resolving your content disputes, prefereably one at a time, and preferably without resort to blocks or topic bans. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Err... one of those "both" hasn't even commented here... just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • "You" means the two users proposing topic bans in this section. They most certainly have commented here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • 'k. nevermind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty funny. The funniest part was the multiple no response conclusions (in bold), just above. We have been telling this guy not to use arguments from silence, and then he just does that. Anyway, I went back and added some exact quotes. But this is a very simple concept, even pointed out to Gregory in Silver Blaze. I will add some more direct quotes to the other pages later. I will not be making any further comments here. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POINT and being one of the least thought-out topic ban proposals in the history of anything. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2013 (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.

Purpose

Can somebody tell me what the purpose of this whole thing still is? Can we just close this or what's to be done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to address the OP (Humanpublic) and his unacceptable behavior. As stated above, he has engaged in highly uncivil habits, however, multiple editors have repeatedly tried to sidetrack the discussion by asserting the incorrect belief that this is a content dispute (which it is not). The blatantly polemical refutations done by his supporter HiLo ([302]) have repeatedly constricted discussion (although they do not have much footing), and I fear they may exhibit the same behavior as Humanpublic. As for the topic ban, there seems to be no consensus, being that the editors have argued over content, not user conduct. However, if Humanpublic's uncivil manner escalates in the future, this will certainly provide insight on the situation. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 12:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How much longer is this discussion going to stay open, with users quarrelling, striking out each others' comments and so on? Are there any admins paying attention to what is going on here at the admins board? Any action going to be taken, comments made by them, decisions, anything?Smeat75 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's gonna happen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Requesting a rapid close to this entire thread This thread has become like a prolonged visit to an inexperienced dentist. As Seb said, no action is likely here. Except bickering, of course. Will some uninvolved person just close it please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2013 (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.