Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819

Loomspicker again

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

---

• I moved this from AN. Pass a Method talk 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've raised this issue here before, but the user in question oh-so-conveniently went inactive for a few days while the thread was open. To sum up, User:Loomspicker is a single-purpose account devoted to pretending Islamophobia doesn't exist by scrubbing the word from Wikipedia, and in the service of this crusade, has engaged in a number of prohibited behaviors. In addition to the evidence detailed here, which includes the introduction of factual inaccuracy, blanking sourced material, and adding scare quotes, he has more recently continued to misrepresent sources ([1] [2] [3]), remove sourced material ([4]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([5] [6] [7]), and otherwise edit in a disruptive and POV manner. Please deal with this even if the user goes inactive in order to avoid scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I take this to ANI instead? Either way, I don't want this to be archived without being addressed simply because the user stopped editing right when the thread opened. That's what happened last time, and obviously he simply resumed the disruptive behavior as soon as it seemed like no one was looking anymore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More of an ANI thing IMO, but since it's here, I'll reply here. (Nowadays apparently you're supposed to use some accursed template to move a thread to ANI, and I can't away with it.) It would be easier to take stock of the situation if you provided a link to where you raised the issue before, Roscelese. If they repeatedly go inactive when they're under scrutiny, and not at other times, then that's significant, but I'd like to see for myself. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

...It's already linked in my first post? But here is the link again. link –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, yes, this sort of thing should be over at WP:ANI, since it's an "incident", so to speak, regarding another user. As far as I (non-admin) know, WP:AN is more for general announcements and requests, while WP:ANI deals more with user behavior. Ansh666 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support block or topic ban rom Islam for Loomspicker. I have been going through this editors contributions and he is clearly anti-Muslim, goes around articles related to Muslims and puts derogotary information about them as well as other unsavoury edits. Pass a Method talk 15:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I share Roscelese's and Pass a Method's concerns, which I also had after seeing this edit which removed five sources. The fact that these same types of edits are occurring across multiple articles is troubling. I'm not sure if a block is required, but a topic ban should definitely be put on the table for discussion.- MrX 19:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit was about what should be included in the article, not necessarily vandalism. Our talk page discussion on the issue clearly shows that. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism, only that it seems to be part of a pattern of erasing the concept of Islamaphobia from Wikipedia by Loomspicker. - MrX 00:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very weak support based on review of edits over the past few days. Some seem to be done with the agenda of removing any sense of "racism" from Islamophobia pages and to cast Islam in a bad light. But based on the evidence presented by Roscelese, the user does seem to have an agenda and is barely here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think Loomspicker was explicitly notified of this discussion on their talk page, so I have done so. I would like to hear from them before deciding whether or not to support a topic ban. - MrX 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've reverted Pass a Method's close of this discussion, as an involved user. The complaint is not withdrawn. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

I propose a topic ban for Loomspicker from all Islam-related articles.Pass a Method talk 22:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support; user's bias is preventing him from editing productively, on balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the concern of this user having an agenda, and a topic ban is not an extreme solution. One thing I'd want to hear from the user before making a call either way is what their assessment of Wikipedia's relevant rules and norms regarding his/her editing are. Has the user commented anywhere on the accusation that s/he is advocating with a specific agenda in mind (that is, as opposed to building an encyclopedia)? It is possible to have opinionated editors still make valuable edits to issues they care about—as long as they understand how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

*This user seems to only vandalize articles about Islamophobia and makes no constructive edits, so it would seem that a general block would be better than a topic ban if this user continues to engage in this sort of behavior.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)(strike as sockpuppet edit) Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - After considerable thought I've reached the conclusion that topic banning this user as proposed would be best for the project. The most convincing reasons are that almost all of Loomspicker's article edits seem be oriented around casting Muslims in a negative light ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]), removing sources and sourced content for specious reasons ([17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]), and especially removing the words Islamophobic and Islamophobia from many articles ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]). Loomspicker claims that blogs shouldn't be used as sources but then does exactly that when it suits his POV. He even downgraded two project classes for the Islamophobia article. Policies and guidelines that are violated in these diffs: WP:POV, WP:LR, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NEWSBLOG, and WP:TEND. It is evident that Loomspicker's purpose here is not to build an encyclopedia collaboratively, but rather is to single-handedly alter Islam-related articles to his particular POV, even if it means damaging the articles. - MrX 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing my edits, but you've not shown anything wrong with them, only that they are focused on a particular topic. This site is WP:NOTCENSORED, disagreeing with something doesn't make it 'disruptive'. You have not shown any damage I have done to articles, beyond the odd minor mistake. The blog source I removed from was from a small Dissent (magazine), the one I added is a blog of nationally circulated newspaper. The content was also completely different, the source I added referred to gave a primary sources of its information, whilst the one I removed was an opinion of protest group. Clearly completely different cases. I also downgraded the Islamophobia article, as it is clearly not B class "article is mostly complete and without major problem". It is very unstable, often undergoing major edits and reorganisation. I stand by all my edits, and believe they are all done inline with appropriate policies. I welcome you to provide me invidivual edits that show otherwise.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• I can also say my most significant edits have both been given support from other users, here and here.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As MrX has amply demonstrated above, Loomspicker is a single-purpose account with an objective incompatible with those of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've been concerned about this editor for some time and MrX's hard work adds sufficient evidence to merit a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban including any form of the word "Islamophobia" in any article. Loomspicker is not here to build the encyclopedia. Rather, the user insists (against a great deal of scholarship) that the word "Islamophobia" cannot be applied to anyone or anything because it is an irrational label. This editor's constant edit warring at Islamophobic incidents is an outstanding example of NOTHERE. Also, these two edits together show the attempt to shut down the word Islamophobia on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to have misread that, it says Islamophobic people are irrational, as it says in the main article.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like an attempt to bar an opponent from editing certain articles. The user concerned has ZERO blocks in his/her blocklog, unlike his/her opponents. So the question, which side is being disruptive here, needs to be treated seriously first. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Estlandia, what have I ever been blocked for? I agree that MoonMetropolis has now been blocked as a sock. MrX has 33000 edits and a clean block record. Jprg1966 has over 16,000 edits and a clean block record. Binkersternet has had a clean block record for 2 years and at 103,000 edits almost as many as me. Rosclese has also been blocked in the past as has Andy. But everyone here has vastly more edits than Loomspicker's 381 edits - he hasn't had a fraction of the chances to be blocked. And of course you've been blocked in the past, but not for a long time. And yes, it's an attempt to bar an editor from editing certain articles - that's what a topic ban does. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Loomspicker

Of the edits linked above, the material was removed as the sources did not back up the claims, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. And they still haven't been provided. Which policies do my edits not comply with? "Pass a Method" and "Roscelese" respond to my edits with reverts, reports and attacks, instead of wishing to discuss the content itself. For example, Pass reverted my edit on this page which has an on-going discussion, yet doesn't contribute to the discussion. Roscelese reverted me three times on this article yet ignores the message I left on their talk page. I did think maybe it was my approach was wrong, but the block logs suggest this is how they normally respond to edits they disagree with. I did ask for sources or a compromise, but I don't hold out much hope of getting either.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, this claim - that removing sourced material, adding claims that are verifiably false, otherwise misrepresenting sources, adding scare-quotes, etc. is simply removing unsourced material - is unconvincing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 24 October 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.

Odd infobox edits by User:Therequiembellishere

I had rather hoped this would not all reach this stage, but I'm at the point where I don't think this can continue without the scrutiny of other editors. A year ago, I noticed User:Therequiembellishere had removed an office order from an American politician's infobox. In the grand scheme of things, nothing important. However, he yielded no explanation when asked, and I then began to notice a talk page, littered with years of complaints against infobox edits that go against established consensus, including the removal of office orders. When no response was forthcoming, I said his edits were against consensus, and that I would put back in orders when I saw they had been removed. Unfortunately, this has now devolved into months of repairing the changes, and despite numerous entreaties that we just simply talk (dated 31 December, 24 March, 29 September), I have never received a word of response. Finally, after seeing another warning left on his talk page by another user about his infobox edits in general, I left one more request. However, the fact he edited thereafter, but more importantly my fear that higher scrutiny is unavoidable at this stage, I have decided to raise this now.

My concern is thus; infobox edits are not the most glamorous topic, but I have become increasingly convinced that, for whatever reason, Therequiembellishere has engaged in a years-long campaign to reformat infoboxes to his own desired format, even when such format goes against established consensus. My own specific concern is over his strange fixation with removing office orders, but from what others users have said on his talk page, he seems to like removing all sorts of other things, though I declare myself no particular expert witness on that aspect - his edits are mostly labelled as 'Formatting infobox/succession boxes'.

To be frank, one way or another, I would like this to end. I didn't join Wikipedia to police other editors. To be honest, I don't mind if I end up getting judged to be wrong - though I don't think I am - but whatever else, I think some community judgement on the validity of Therequiembellishere's edits is long overdue. Redverton (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of the contentious edits and maybe some link to where consensus was established? I do agree that the lack of communication is an issue. John Reaves 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any centralised discussion where consensus was reached. On the matter of office orders, my awareness of a consensus has come through localised discussions I've seen, and through being told by other editors that such a consensus existed. I know that hardly sounds definitive, but more pertinently we do have a standardised infobox format, such as the example at Template:Infobox officeholder. There, we can see the standard format includes an order field, as well as other filled-in fields that Therequiembellishere has removed over countless articles, examples of which I provide at the end. At first, I thought of this as a content dispute. Indeed, in my entreaty of 29 September, I suggested we hold an RFC (again, no response). However, I began to see his edits as, to be frank, disruptive, when I concluded that years of infobox edits against the standard format and - as you noted - doing the silent treatment when often questioned about the changes by other editors, meant this evolved from a content dispute to something much more disruptive. Whilst I still welcome an RFC or some kind of a centralised discussion - whether over office orders or infobox formats in general - I think his editing behaviour has become an entirely separate discussion.

I've picked some of his most recent edits. They show him removing the 'order' field, and removing the order itself. I've also tried to pick edits that highlight some of the other concerns editors have raised, such as when he removes filled-in fields like professions and places of residence. To be honest, these are not some of his most pronounced changes - whenever an editor like me questions him about his edits, he noticeably scales down the kind of changes he makes (even without responding to those queries), but then seems to pick up again after a short while after the attention has passed. When I intervene over his office orders removals, he does let them stay in for awhile, but then inevitably goes back to trying again. [44] [45] [46] [47], [48]. Redverton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may opinion, I think all that's needed atm is a community warning that he edit infoboxes according to the standard format. If he wants the standard format to change, he should pursue consensus before editing so. If, however, he does persist in editing without seeking a change beforehand to the standard format, some kind of topic ban on editing infoboxes might have to be considered, but hopefully it won't reach that stage. Redverton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh to clarify, since Therequiem hasn't yet responded here, I did leave a note on his talk page the day I started this up. Redverton (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

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 user had been notorious for his edit-warrings and other bad behaviour in articles related to the Syrian civil war, but I think this time he had gone too far. He had deleted with no reason other user section on the talk page of the Battle of Aleppo detailed map, as can be seen here.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Sopher99 believes the IP editor he reverted is notorious sockmaster User:Deonis 2012; I don't know what evidence he has for that belief. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Right. The blind are reporting the blind: neither of them follow any kind of proper procedure. If Sopher thinks HCPUNXKID is a sock, they should file an SPI (strikes me as very unlikely, since KID started three years before Deonis did, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I hear). HCPUNXKID, in turn, has no business reporting to ANI after one single revert. And we're done, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you had not understanded most of it, Sopher99 believes that the IP user who added the section is a sockmaster, not me. Better read things carefully before stating anything about it, dont you think so?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, pal--I only do English grammar to connect English words. What are you doing at ANI? Sopher removed a comment thinking it was a sock, it was restored. Anything here requiring admin intervention? Or do you want an admin to go to Sopher's talk page and say WRONG WRONG WRONG? You can do that yourself, and all you have to do is copy and paste. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 11 November 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.

Conflict of interest on Lee Roy Parnell

(Cross posted from WP:COIN) Luvwomercy (talk · contribs) has been making copyvio edits to Lee Roy Parnell, including the removal of any description of him as a "country" artist. This edit in particular, in which the edit summary is "Edited Intro paragraph at artist's request - does not want to be described here as a country artist", suggests that the user is in cahoots with Parnell, as is the fact that their user name is based off one of his songs. Most of their additions have been pure copyvio straight from his site, further suggesting a high COI. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So, an artist has absolutely no say about information that's posted on Wikipedia? Yes, I WORK for him if that's "in cahoots". He simply doesn't want to be described as SOLELY a country artist. His bio, - posted under his direction, with his permission - mentions ALL of his works.

I didn't realize that this would be so difficult. He simply wants the page more up to date, with complete information. I don't update Wikipedia for a living and it's been a huge pain in the ass, to say the least. If a page can be published about someone, why should they have no say in what's posted there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvwomercy (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, read WP:NOTADVOCATE, #5. Wikipedia is made up of information published elsewhere and is not a platform for self definition. I realize you probably weren't aware of some of these nuances, but perhaps you could use the talk page to suggest changes as our conflict of interest guidelines suggest rather than editing the article directly.

See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways Parnell can get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk: Lee Roy Parnell if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is [email protected]. The first thing he'll likely be asked to do is to privately establish his identity. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Lee Roy Parnell is not known for being a country artist? BS!! I've got a CD of his downstairs ... pretty darned country. And no, the artist themself really has no say ... reliable sources ... like, um, Billboard's country charts ... certainly do. If he's made charts in another format, prove it! If not, he's still better know for country ES&L 00:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

CD? OR! EEng (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiEditor2563 and Colonization of Mars

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 been discussing WikiEditor2563 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits of Colonization of Mars at his talk page. WikiEditor2563 has removed sources and introduced a bunch of opinions and original research, as well as introducing the same exact opening paragraph several times (this being the latest example). This is a content dispute that could be worked out on talk pages, but on WikiEditor2563's talk page he has called me and the other editors trying to work with him 'Wikipedia Gestapo',(diff) 'morons', and a 'minion' of Robert Zubrin (who is apparently a Mars exploration advocate). He also accused me of being "hustled by NASA and the science writers" for daring to suggest that he include sources in his edits. (Here, wow).

This editors has been previously warned about edit warring and personal attacks, by me and Andyjsmith (talk · contribs), as well as other editors for his unrelated edits to Résumé. WikiEditor2563 has blanked those warnings here and here, and has explained on his talk that he doesn't consider them valid. I could play revert-tag with him, but he's made it clear that he is '1000% confident in his edits' and will just keep putting his content back without any meaningful discussion. After being insulted like that I figured this might warrant administrator involvement. If this would be better filed at WP:AN/EW I apologize, but the personal attacks seemed more troubling. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that this necesssarily will keep WikiEditor2563 from receiving sanctions, but it seems s/he is quite new to editing. They have only 72 edits to their name so far. Has the critical importance of civility in dispute resolution been expressed to him/her, and the distinction between commenting on content instead of contributors? [I have offered full explanations of my content or changes to comment, more recently due to the "learning curve" for all this. I do not comment on contributors.] WikiEditor2563 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC) This helps shape the context of their remarks and what the way forward should be. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made the point about civility on the editor's talk page, where s/he was also given a lvl 3 edit-warring warning template by someone else. It looks like others have also brought it up at Talk:Résumé, where the editors has ignored requests to remove or strike out personal attacks ("Wikipedia gestapo" again). I have not brought up the content/contributors distinction. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) ::Grayfell stressed the importance of civility on WikiEditor2563's talk page yesterday (and did so eloquently). I'm commenting here because I watch Resume and was dismayed at the user's attempts[49][50][51] to edit-war OR content into the article and doubly dismayed at his or her refusal to listen to what more experienced users have said on the talk page of that article. Three of us—Bonadea, Barek, and I—have said variations on the same thing: that the content violates basic content policies, and we've explained it adequately and provided links. For our pains, we've been called arrogant and illiterate and have been shouted at[52] and termed "morons" and "dogs out of a cage"[53]. Even my gentle, non-template caution[54] about edit warring was removed[55]. I don't really see at this point what else we can do in the way of explanations. If the user seemed the slightest bit open to becoming acquainted with Wikipedia policies—both content and behavioral—I'd be all for cutting further slack, but I'm not seeing any openness at all. Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this editor is "new to editing". He's been messing around with the Mars article for most of the year and has been involved in huge discussions about the error of his ways, but to no avail. Incidentally, when reading his talk page pay close attention to the history - the page has been heavily redacted and that has confused the discussion threads. I'm not too concerned about the insults as such but rather what they imply. What I see, with all the warring and the shouting, is someone with a sense of ownership and absolutely no interest in working collaboratively. I've reached the stage of not trusting any of his edits even when they seem to be factual because he simply won't provide sources - he believes that his unsupported opinion is sufficient. This is an untrustworthy and disputatious editor who has no place on Wikipedia. andy (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, just looking at this users edits shows me that he is lacking a massive amount of clue. I have some serious doubts that mentorship would do anything to change that. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he lacks clue. There needs to be a change of attitude, because right now it's a very BATTLEGROUND mentality. But he deserves to at least hear how he can contribute positively, though, IMHO. If he still refuses to get the point, then we can talk about whether he is HERE for constructive purposes or not. A polite articulation of his expectations as an editor and how he specifically can contribute may defuse some tension ... or not, but it's worth seeing, I think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO he's had it abundantly explained to him how he can contribute positively, particularly by Grayfell. His response is "I am an expert", "Sourced, informed, what's the difference" and "Advice given by an expert, quite frankly, is better than a non-expert adding some random tidbit of information completely out of context". He's also not as much of an expert as he thinks - see, for example, how he shouts on his talk page that Mars has microgravity, which must be a bit of a surprise to NASA. Personally, I'd like to see a consensus here for one final final warning - from an admin who's not been involved with the warring - and then a very long block after even the slightest transgression. andy (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Update - even while this discussion (to which he has been invited) is going on he's still warring. He's just made the same old edits again, and been reverted again. I've given him a final warning for disruption. andy (talk)

I'm hoping the last edit he made on the talk page is a step in the right direction. If it's not, I don't know how we'll be able to get around blocking him for a while. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

[Andy, Mars has less gravity than Earth, being 1/3 that of Earth. The term for this is "microgravity." Your disagreement with this alone PROVES you don't have a CLUE. It is absolutely FOOLISH for you claim that Mars doesn't have microgravity, and to think THIS would support a claim to ban me, for God's sake. Your ignorance is shocking. Saying something is “sourced” is not a defense to post random data about Mars that has nothing to do with a colony per se, or to make edits that are terribly worded and therefore misleading Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's relevant or untouchable or belongs on any particular wiki page. Sourced material is not protected from scrutiny. There is a far greater case against YOU being banned than me.]WikiEditor2563 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this neatly sums up the problem. Here we see aggression (red ink, for goodness sake!), incivility and claims of superior knowledge. It's worth noting that the definition of microgravity is easily determined by googling "microgravity definition" where one finds, for example, that "it doesn’t refer to a low level of gravity", something that this editor has clearly not bothered to do. What are we to do with an editor who refuses to check his facts and and adopts and aggressively defends a position in this way? andy (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the red ink was probably used to make sure his comment was delineated from the comment he was inserting into. I'll ask him not to do this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's actually what he believes "microgravity" is, I look forwards to the book he's writing then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked this editor indefinitely. Rationale is here: [56]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 13 November 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.

Abusive IP Editor is back

• 200.104.245.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Abusive IP Edits: IP 190.46.108.141 (and noting that the same guy generated two additional reports). Suspected to be IP socking by User:Yourname. Has been IP hopping for years now, eventually he is blocked for WP:CIVIL and then a few days later is back on a new IP. Example User talk:200.104.120.204.

90% of his edits are not a problem, the abusive edit summaries are abrasive fucking morons who copy and paste in text instead of writing their own really piss me off. Trouble is if you disagree with him over the most minor point he gets abusive. Has recently returned to Ian Gow [57],[58] with same obsessive removal of details about his death from 2 years ago [59]. Templated for 3rr and notified of this ANI thread. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tricky. I agree that the edit summaries are over the top, way over. But their edit on Ian Gow is correct (you're wrong, WCM) and they haven't broken 3R. I hate these kinds of situations. On the one hand they're correct that IPs often get shafted, on the other they're just inviting it, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some admins block for this kind of incivility; I don't, but I don't have any other options. Hey, IP editor, take it easy and tone it down. It's always better to not piss people off, and if you really want to vent, why not do it at work instead of here? Your work might actually be appreciated in this joint. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They will break 3RR, they always do. Sorry why do you say I'm wrong, the consensus in talk is to include a reference to the car that was destroyed in the bombing? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

[60] As per previous behaviour, they broke 3RR with no attempt to discuss and no attempt to follow WP:BRD. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They were warned and they broke it. True. However, I don't see consensus on the talk page, though there is a little bit of banter, and a comment on how the make of the car said something about the subject's lifestyle (it doesn't, only by unverified inference--if such a note needs to be made, it needs to be made in an explicit and well-verified manner). But that's beside the point, I suppose. The IP is simply not very good at making a case. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem has been the discussion with the guy is spread over multiple IP talk pages, hence it is difficult to convey an accurate picture going into diffs over the last two years. Every time he hops to a new IP, its like the clock is reset. Were this a named account, he would have been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and multiple violations of WP:CIVIL long ago. On the content issue, I was swayed by Isabella's comment that the modest nature of the car and his home conveyed some measure of the man, which as an argument is something they have never responded to. Instead they've simply labelled everyone who disagress as "moron". I don't suppose I'm unique in finding it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone whose main riposte is you're a "dopey fucking cunt" for disagreeing with them? If this is what you suggest is failing to make a case, we violently agree but should we await their 4th revert every time? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on their talk page, diffs and all, that's helpful. And like I said there, I think I've run into them before. No doubt this situation in part results from the very ability of people editing without an account; as you said, if this had been a registered editor they would have been blocked, perhaps indefinitely, before. I don't have a good solution. I don't want to block everyone the moment they say a bad word, and with IP-changing editors it's difficult sometimes to establish patterns, but you seem to have done a pretty good job of it, and don't doubt that I will do my best to keep an eye on it. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban evasion by Mikemikev

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.

---

Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is editing from a Korean ip 27.1.214.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as he usually does, showering me with abuse and reverting my edits at different pages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop socking. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So stop lying. 27.1.214.45 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant SPI, for anyone interested. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Maunus, feel free to file the paperwork if you think it needs to be filed. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much need for SPI, it is not as if he tries to hide it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe 211.119.109.68 is him as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller just beat me to it and semi-protected the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 13 November 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 Warring: Ravi Zacharias

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.

---

Ravi Zacharias Long-standing (and hard-fought) consensus language on this page acknowledges that this theologians views about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its relationship to creationism are not shared by many (any?) members of the scientific community. On editor insists on removing that language, and is already at or over the 3RR rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11/13/2013

EWN is that way. KonveyorBelt 19:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, and edits rolled back. No need to tolerate such nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 13 November 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.

Bey

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 asking for a semi-protection of the article Bey where an anon IP is not only deleting sourced content, he is also adding POV material to the text. The anon IP should use the talkpage first instead of changing the text. --Lysozym (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Try here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 21:07, 13 November 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.

Rangeblock may be 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.

---

There are a few IP's from a massive range (possibly 75.0.0.0/10) are disrupting a few pages on Christianity. I've listed them below, currently a 75.51.168.0/22 rangeblock would do the job however they may just be able to jump outside it.

• 75.51.171.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.169.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.169.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.170.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 75.51.170.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Currently every edit they make is from a different IP (which is why I haven't notified them), so it'd be good to do something. It is a reasonably large number of articles to semi so I'd suggest a rangeblock would be worth trying first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• You are right, it is a huge block. I would be disinclined to do such a large block because of all the others who would be caught up in it. Wackamole? JodyB _talk 12:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also reverted these IPs using Huggle. Thet are making a large-scale trouble. These are some of the diffs: [61][62][63][64][65][66][67]. Faizan 12:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also, a /16 is the largest we can do and that would take out +65,000 addresses. JodyB _talk 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:JodyB what about a short term (6 or so hours to see if that works) of the /22 range. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. I probably just shutdown the world banking system but I did the /22 for 6 hours. Let's see. JodyB _talk 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, hopefully that'll do it. My watchlist just increased in size if not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Another IP caught, 166.216.226.92, diff here. Faizan 12:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully that's a coincidence. FYI, the specifics of my block at "75.51.168.0/22" for 6 hours. Your review or comment is always welcomed. JodyB _talk 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• 166.216.226.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.226.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This cannot be a coincidence. We need another range block. Faizan 13:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Did a /24 for 6 hours. I have to run out, back soon. Revert me as needed. JodyB _talk 13:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• 166.216.226.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks, another one caught here. I hope that does not happen again. Faizan 13:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just semi-protected a number of their targets. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 14 November 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.

vandalism by User talk:Kppadgett

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

---

the account User talk:Kppadgett has only been used for vandalism the last two days, with 9 obscene edits to 3 article, despite repeated warnings. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked, but WP:AIV is your friend next time ;).--v/r - TP 16:08, 14 November 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.

Trolling Anon

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.

---

Special:Contributions/99.243.185.177 has been trolling hockey pages for days now. I am unfortunately not an admin. I have notified this user of this discussion as well as per guidelines. --FourthLineGoon (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The recipe is simple. Revert, give warnings, report at WP:AIV. In the meantime I blocked them for 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 15 November 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.

Odd infobox edits by User:Therequiembellishere

I had rather hoped this would not all reach this stage, but I'm at the point where I don't think this can continue without the scrutiny of other editors. A year ago, I noticed User:Therequiembellishere had removed an office order from an American politician's infobox. In the grand scheme of things, nothing important. However, he yielded no explanation when asked, and I then began to notice a talk page, littered with years of complaints against infobox edits that go against established consensus, including the removal of office orders. When no response was forthcoming, I said his edits were against consensus, and that I would put back in orders when I saw they had been removed. Unfortunately, this has now devolved into months of repairing the changes, and despite numerous entreaties that we just simply talk (dated 31 December, 24 March, 29 September), I have never received a word of response. Finally, after seeing another warning left on his talk page by another user about his infobox edits in general, I left one more request. However, the fact he edited thereafter, but more importantly my fear that higher scrutiny is unavoidable at this stage, I have decided to raise this now.

My concern is thus; infobox edits are not the most glamorous topic, but I have become increasingly convinced that, for whatever reason, Therequiembellishere has engaged in a years-long campaign to reformat infoboxes to his own desired format, even when such format goes against established consensus. My own specific concern is over his strange fixation with removing office orders, but from what others users have said on his talk page, he seems to like removing all sorts of other things, though I declare myself no particular expert witness on that aspect - his edits are mostly labelled as 'Formatting infobox/succession boxes'.

To be frank, one way or another, I would like this to end. I didn't join Wikipedia to police other editors. To be honest, I don't mind if I end up getting judged to be wrong - though I don't think I am - but whatever else, I think some community judgement on the validity of Therequiembellishere's edits is long overdue. Redverton (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs of the contentious edits and maybe some link to where consensus was established? I do agree that the lack of communication is an issue. John Reaves 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any centralised discussion where consensus was reached. On the matter of office orders, my awareness of a consensus has come through localised discussions I've seen, and through being told by other editors that such a consensus existed. I know that hardly sounds definitive, but more pertinently we do have a standardised infobox format, such as the example at Template:Infobox officeholder. There, we can see the standard format includes an order field, as well as other filled-in fields that Therequiembellishere has removed over countless articles, examples of which I provide at the end. At first, I thought of this as a content dispute. Indeed, in my entreaty of 29 September, I suggested we hold an RFC (again, no response). However, I began to see his edits as, to be frank, disruptive, when I concluded that years of infobox edits against the standard format and - as you noted - doing the silent treatment when often questioned about the changes by other editors, meant this evolved from a content dispute to something much more disruptive. Whilst I still welcome an RFC or some kind of a centralised discussion - whether over office orders or infobox formats in general - I think his editing behaviour has become an entirely separate discussion.

I've picked some of his most recent edits. They show him removing the 'order' field, and removing the order itself. I've also tried to pick edits that highlight some of the other concerns editors have raised, such as when he removes filled-in fields like professions and places of residence. To be honest, these are not some of his most pronounced changes - whenever an editor like me questions him about his edits, he noticeably scales down the kind of changes he makes (even without responding to those queries), but then seems to pick up again after a short while after the attention has passed. When I intervene over his office orders removals, he does let them stay in for awhile, but then inevitably goes back to trying again. [68] [69] [70] [71], [72]. Redverton (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may opinion, I think all that's needed atm is a community warning that he edit infoboxes according to the standard format. If he wants the standard format to change, he should pursue consensus before editing so. If, however, he does persist in editing without seeking a change beforehand to the standard format, some kind of topic ban on editing infoboxes might have to be considered, but hopefully it won't reach that stage. Redverton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh to clarify, since Therequiem hasn't yet responded here, I did leave a note on his talk page the day I started this up. Redverton (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Relisted this. After a year of this dispute, I'm eager to get some resolution. Redverton (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

SPA now deleting/altering talk-page comments

The SPA account user:lightbreather, is now deleting and modifying comments on the AWB talk page. This SPA has been tendentiously editing the AWB page, almost exclusively, for many months now. Repeatedly arguing over a single word on the page "cosmetic". Although it dodged trouble itself, it was heavily involved in this edit war with a partner who was suspended. Almost immediately after that suspension, the SPA account attempted to bring several other editors here to ANI, an act which boomeranged as you can see here. The SPA was warned very sternly and (and quite unanymously by the editors here) to leave the AWB page alone for a while. The SPA left for 2 weeks and then returned and picked up where it left off. I have a low tolerance for WP:CRUSH behavior, and when the SPA removed and edited my talk page comments, I demanded that the editor return them to their previous states, as did other editors. When the editor refused, I left the AWB article completely, which is my response to such altercations. I have not returned, nor do I intend to. To date my comments remain erased/altered. My request: 1. I want my comments returned. 2. I would like an impartial group to review the actions of this SPA and determine if the slap on the wrist it received in ANI last time was effective. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For those unfamiliar with this situation, AWB in this case refers to Federal Assault Weapons Ban and not the AutoWikiBrowser. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The first thing I do when I review POV issues, is I try to determine what someone's POV is. I can't determine an obvious POV for Lightbreather, perhaps you can point to some of their POV edits? Their removing your talk page comments can and should be reverted, though.--v/r - TP 22:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO Lightbreathe went wiki-wild a few months ago, including knitting in a POV swing. And I locked horns with them back then. I recently suggested a fresh start and they agreed, and so far they appear to be doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Beg most humbly to disagree. Lightbreather's troubles here at ANI were only 28 days ago. She took a Hiatus and then picked up exactly where she left off about a week ago. This was when she began altering and deleting talkpage conversations. The "fresh start" was proposed only yesterday, and already at least two editors question her sincerity. As one editor said: "Apparently the "fresh start" we are to have is to pretend that four months of discussion on this already settled matter no longer exists, so that we can flog it just a little bit more (translation: endlessly). No. This rises to a new level of disruption - not the immediate, crazy-making disruption of editor Saltyboatr a month ago, but instead disruption festering like a cancer. Here we are - four months later - talking about the word cosmetic, with the insistence that a settled matter isn't settled, because one editor says it's not settled. " Finally, the altared/deleted conversations have yet to be reverted by this SPA. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sue, lightbreather is the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also agree with Sue, I don't edit the AWB page but I've been watching it from the sidelines for the last couple months and Lightbreather has done nothing but stall progress with tendentious edits. The deleted comments should be restored, and the editor should probably be topic banned. ROG5728 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd oppose a topic ban without some serious evidence. I see it too often that editors pile on here saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd. Not flowing with the crowd is not a crime on Wikipedia. Disruption is though. So please provide evidence of actual disruption and not anecdotal evidence that equates to "she makes me mad." 'Stalling progress' is not disruptive, imho, if progress is going in the wrong direction. Since that is a subjective measure, I tend to just say that stalling progress is not admissible. If you have an RFC and they are editing in violation of it, that's one thing. But using a talk page to address an issue, even tendentiously, is not disruptive by itself.--v/r - TP 02:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting or altering other editors' talk page comments without a good reason is clearly disruptive, and the user's editing behavior in general hasn't been much better. ROG5728 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that this happened months ago, am I wrong?--v/r - TP 02:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down my computer for the evening and am making this brief reply by phone. Will answer any and all questions tomorrow. If others will give DIFFS I will drop everything I'm working on to respond to each. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, I don't see it either, and I went back 100 edits in that talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few examples:

• 20:12, 1 November 2013
• 20:17, 1 November 2013
• 20:19, 1 November 2013

Hamitr (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're hurting your own case. Calling another editor a vandal without diffs is a personal attack. Lightbreather has every right to redact Sue's comments. Good faith edits, whether they break stuff or remove sources or anything, are never vandalism. What you've just uncovered is Sue's bad behavior and you may have just opened up Sue to a WP:BOOMERANG.--v/r - TP 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it was inappropriate for editor suerangell to repeatedly refer to editor lightbreather as a vandal. And indeed, editor lightbreather had "every right" to redact sue's comments. And as with every right, comes responsibility. As WP:TPO says, "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.". Part of the responsibility means dealing with the fallout that may follow. This is part of that fallout. As I pointed out below, editor lightbreather linked back to the comments in response to the ensuing discussion. I contend that if the comments were so damaging they required excision, then its rather, well, silly to link right back to them. It's damnably rare that removing another editors comments will be met with quiet accedence (with the exception of actual vandalism, spam, or off-topic chit chat). Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I understood you correctly. Are you saying that when Editor A makes a bad comment about Editor B, and Editor B removes that, that if Editor B links to it in an administrative discussion as evidence about Editor A's misconduct, that Editor B must not find it that bad? That doesn't make sense at all. You'd essentially be saying that editors are not allowed to provide diffs of misconduct because the action of providing the diffs means that it wasn't really that bad.--v/r - TP 16:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I was referring to editor Lightbreather linking back to the comments in the ensuing discussion on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

while I think lightbreather may have a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU the behavior in general has been an improvement over the past. I am not aware of any talk page removals, but I haven't been watching the diffs super closely. Its very frustrating and verging on WP:DE to still be dealing with the word "cosmetic" which is really well sourced (although there is always room for possible improvement as our current discussion indicates) - but absent some evidentiary diffs, I do not think the disruption extends to requiring administrative action at this time.Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

On October 3 ago Lightbreather asked at the Teahouse for a mentor, and I told her I would be happy to be her mentor. Lightbreather is not an "it". SueRangell knows that Lightbreather is a she and a grandmother. Lightbreather has asked on multiple occasions not to be referred to by negative acronyms such as SPA. That seems to me a very reasonable request.

I know that a difficult consensus was reached on a controversial use of the word cosmetic, but I would suggest that the editors reaching consensus do not represent the full array of opinions on the complex question of an assault weapons ban. For example, if you read an interview with Diane Feinstein (Daily News, 13 April 2013)

They claimed the bans were based merely on cosmetic features even though every law enforcement officer who testified on the bill agreed that these features are not cosmetic, but instead add directly to the lethality of the weapons.

and then looked up the federal assault weapon ban on Wikipedia, you would see that the very first sentence of the section immediately following the lead paragraph reads:

Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.

You might think that Wikipedia was being less that even-handed. Given the number of times that paragraph is cut and pasted onto conservative blogs, some may even think Wikipedia supports a particular position. (They never credit Wikipedia however.)

I suggested that the word be moved out of the first sentence of the section and introduced lower down in the section with more explanation. See Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban#Comment on "cosmetic". It's a judgment, not a description, and doesn’t belong in an opening sentence like that. It should be introduced with a discussion of all the ways it is used. I would like to see the section changed because I think its un-encyclopedic to write the article that way. Lightbreather would like to see it change because it is really is controversial to present the topic that way, no matter how many quotes one can find. It’s a topic she cares very deeply about. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"car[ing] very deeply about" a topic isn't a rationale. Are we to understand that this editor cares more than other editors? Therefore this editor's concerns carry more weight? No. In fact, the only reason this issue of cosmetic is an issue is because one editor is driving it and creating a controversy about it where none exists (in terms of reliable sources, which is what we build the encyclopedia on). This has been discussed endlessly on the talk page, and so I have to ask directly (since I've suggested tangentially before) - have you, editor StarryGrandma, read all of the archived discussion of the last four months? If not, I suggest that you are being manipulated by the editor in question. It is, in fact, a settled matter - here, nine years later - that the features banned by the bill were cosmetic. You've been enlisted to carry forward this editor's torch - the seeds of doubt have been sewn sufficiently that you're now arguing in this editor's stead. There was no difficulty in consensus on the talk page - it was overwhelming. Unless we count "civil" but relentless forced discussion to be the difficulty, in which case yes, it was difficult, dealing with a single editor who will not WP:HEAR. I've been accused of being uncivil, and sometimes I do dance around the margins, but largely I am just extremely blunt, and that's what I've presented above. You are being manipulated. I've made "pro-control" edits and "pro-rights" edits in numerous articles on wikipedia. What matters to me are the reliable sources, always. The sources are what speak. The sources are the 'law'. The sources are what separate wikipedia from just another blog. We have the sources, they are clear. We also have a law that expired nine years ago, and nothing about the law or the commentary written about it before during or after has changed, nor has the perception of its effectiveness or lack thereof changed. "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.". Those were your words. Has your opinion changed, after discussion with the editor in question? Have you discussed the article with any other editors besides the editor in question? Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This also needs to be addressed: "Lightbreather is not an "it". SueRangell knows that Lightbreather is a she and a grandmother.". I cannot speak for editor SueRangell, but I can speak from experience that the editor in question complains bitterly any time an editor addresses "it" in personal terms, whether it be "she" or "you" or "her" or simply an unembellished first person "Lightbreather". I cannot speak for other editors, but I am forced to refer to the editor in question either in the third person or indirectly, as I am weary of being scolded for speaking colloquially. It is also important to bear in mind that wikipedia is entirely anonymous. An editor may present themselves in any manner they choose - or choose not to present themselves at all. We have no way of verifying who editors are in reality - nor should it make any difference whatsoever who they are. Perhaps I'm a grandfather - and I also care very deeply about these issues. Is the fact (or so I choose to lead you to believe) that I am male, a grandfather, and care deeply about these issues actually relevant to the construction of this encyclopedia? No. Who we are is irrelevant to the construction of this encyclopedia. The quality of our writing (and not the CV behind it) and the quality of the sources are what matter. Period. Anastrophe (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the substantive issue at hand. The editor in question removed the comments with the summary "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of". The argument that the comments were so harmful that they demanded excision falls apart when the editor in question links back to them in the ensuing discussion of same. Removal of other editor's comments is generally considered a foul act in and of itself, unless we're talking about blathering discussion that belongs elsewhere (such as belong on the countless chat forums around the web) or simple spam or vandalism. Since nothing is ever truly deleted anywhere on wikipedia, it's an act that rarely accomplishes more than seeding unnecessary aggravation, and fostering discussion that has nothing to do with the article - thus, deleting talk page comments is an act that's destined to cause more harm than the comments that were deleted. As to the other issues, as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as a "fresh start" while we're in the midst, again, of "discussing" whether the word cosmetic is reliably sourced (it is), is NPOV (it is), is appropriate (it is), is appropriate at the beginning of the section (it is), whether cosmetic really means cosmetic (yes it does, to both pro-rights and pro-control factions, per the sources), whether the pro-control sources use cosmetic to really, really, no seriously really mean, you know, cosmetic for absolutely certain and for sure? (they do). An absurd amount of 'ink' has been spilt "discussing" this on the talk page - but as I said before, here we are, again, four months later, going into the finer details of all of the above. The intent seems to be to just wear down other editors until one by one they exit in disgust. I'm about at that point. I opposed the previous ANI calling for sanctions, and I generally don't even participate in these things. I'm now wavering, for the reasons above. I simply do not see this situation improving, and I for one will drink hemlock if I find myself arguing about the word cosmetic in 2014. Anastrophe (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If lightbreather doesn't want to be considered an SPA, they should edit different articles so that that description is no longer accurate. If one hasn't noticed, we ALL care deeply about this topic, so that is really a moot point. However, (content dispute digression) the "cosmetic" side has numerous reliable sources, and the "not cosmetic" side has a few self published advocacy groups statements. Certainly a content dispute is not an issue for ANI, but Lightbreather's constant refusal to abide consensus, and work collaboratively instead of taking every disagreement as a personal attack is disruption, and that certainly may be a matter for this board. If she thinks the local consensus is not sufficient, she should start an RFC, except there was ALREADY an RFC on this exact topic, and she is trying to overturn its consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2#RfC:_Is_inclusion_of_the_word_.22cosmetic.22_in_the_Criteria_section_appropriate.3F

Here is the RFC Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2#RfC:_Is_inclusion_of_the_word_.22cosmetic.22_in_the_Criteria_section_appropriate.3F, on this exact issue, 3 months ago, where Lightbreather was making the exact same arguments they are making now, and from that time they have provided no additional sources to defend their point of view, no novel arguments, just rehashing the same issue into the ground. Or the discussion from 2004 (prior to Lightbreather?) [Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_1] Or this one from 10 months ago which included lightbreather [Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_2] or this one from last month, ultimately resulting in the topic ban of SaltyBoatr.[Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5#Proposal:_section_dedicated_to_the_issue_of_.27cosmetic.27] or one of the OTHER many discussions we have had on THIS EXACT TOPIC for the past year and longer? WP:ICANTHEARYOU Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it Lightbreather is no longer seeking to remove the cosmetic characterization, and instead wants to add a sentence that it is disputed by some. The sourcing for the latter is basically picking three instance where someone has made that assertion, and two of the three I'd consider "F" grade as sources. So they're not secondary, and they're not even primary for the statement. Normally I'd complain wp:or/wp:synth, but to me it's a "sky is blue' statement that some people object to the term and personally I don't get tough on sourcing for sky-is-blue statements. So then it is a quesiton of wp:weight/wp:undue under wp:npov. I'm on the fence on that one. More to come. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Correcting my error/omission, Lightbreather IS seeking to also dial back the cosmetic characterization. So my "scope of the statement" analysis was wrong. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your characterization on both fronts. It definitely is a WP:WEIGHT issue we have 10-20 (with Im sure more to be found if we are forced to spend the time) quality sources all discussing the cosmetic angle, from all different POVs, different fields of study, primary, secondary, tertiary, academic, political, media, etc vs self avowed anti-gun groups saying "we disagree".

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that's a content issue and not a conduct issue. Which means it doesn't belong on ANI. As far as the conduct issues above, I believe that Lightbreather acted appropriately and it is Sue Rangell who behaved inappropriately for repeatedly calling this user a vandal. Sue's comment were appropriately redacted. So I think this thread can be closed unless someone wants to discuss Sue's behavior further.--v/r - TP 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the relevance of my post is that in recent days Lightbreather "backed off" a notch on the "cosmetic" issue. Based on past history I think that folks do not trust her, that she might start another sophisticated relentless POV shifting push. But the last few days have been an offered and accepted "fresh start" during which time she has not violated norms. And so the concerns expressed by others should be acknowledged as legitimate and founded, but that the possibilities are good that a truly fresh start has happened and she should be given a chance while we all go into a "wait and see" mode. And possibly Lightbreather should de-intensify their involvement at the article a bit and have some editing fun at some unrelated less controversial articles.North8000 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting the correction of my error, possible Lightbreather has recently still gone to the edge of norms. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes me nervous to reply here, but I'm afraid that silence might be interpreted as proof of guilt. If my reply is too short, perhaps some will think it curt or snarky. If I make it too long it may seem overly argumentative. This is my life on the Wikipedia assault weapons ban talk page.

That said, I see zero DIFFs from Sue_Rangell, North8000, Mike_Searson, ROG5728, Anastrophe, and Gaijin42. Sue did provide the link to the discussion I started on ANI about possible ownership issues. (That discussion includes one of my attempts to end the SPA accusations, which I am asking again, now, to stop.) Editor Hamitr provided the links to when I deleted Sue's accusations about intentional vandalism and misinformation. I already presented my defense of those here.

There are so many generalizations and exaggerations about me above that I would like to address, but I will simply close by saying that I have not tried to remove "cosmetic" from the criteria section since that discussion was closed over two months ago. My recent effort - in response to a discussion started by another editor, not me - has been to restore a single, sourced sentence that not all agree with use of the term. It was added to the article via BRD on Sept. 27, but was lost in a rollback. We were "this close" to restoring it when this ANI came up. (The sources - the Violence Policy Center (VPC), the then-president of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, and a PBS NewHour interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and a Seattle police chief - may be biased, but they are reliable and verifiable.)

Again, if anyone has DIFFs, I will drop what I'm doing and respond, but I hope we can just go back to improving the article and discussing content, not ME. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You repeatedly ask to stop being called SPA, but it is not an insult. You edit only on one topic (and really only on one article) that is the very definition of WP:SPA Single Purpose Account. Since you are calling me out for not providing evidence, basically EVERY edit you have made on this topic since the RFC is a WP:HEARing issue. You fail to correctly interpret what WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT means. All of the items you just posted are from self published primary sources. We do not doubt that those people said what they said, but that holds very little weight compared to the 20 or so newspaper, books, and academic articles. So yes, some people disagree. Some people also think the world is flat, but we don't talk about their opinions in the Globe article. If we had an entire section dedicated to the cosmetic issue, we could give that minority viewpoint a sentence, but we don't. We have one sentence saying that the features are described as cosmetic. The self published primary sources do not get equal weight to that. (Yes I proposed such a sentence in the article talk, but upon further reflection it runs too far afoul of WP:UNDUE. Adding that entire section will lead down a nasty path of WP:POV as it would really have to be a "peoples opinions about the law" section. There is a consensus. You don't like it. Learn to deal with that. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a WP:SPA is a personal attack when the title is used as a pejorative. Calling me a 'guy' could be a personal attack in the right context. ie. If I were editing an article on feminist issues and someone say "Well, of course he'd say that, he's a guy". That'd be a personal attack. It matters on the intentions on the person using it and not on the specific definition itself. Is it a fact that he's a SPA, it could be. Does that mean consistently pointing it out is acceptable? No. Especially if it's used as an ad hominem (argument about a person's traits, instead of their central point).--v/r - TP 01:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that I should also point out that the problematic editor in question is on the same side politically as myself, we both supported the FAWB. In case some people think there is some sort of political motivation here. It may even surprise some people to know that it was user:lightbreather that canvassed me to the article's RfC in the first place, because of my stance on gun control. Politics is not the issue here. The issue is with an SPA that has brought discussion to a virtual halt for months now. I honestly do not know what the normal proceedure for this sort of thing is, be it a block, topic ban, or just a warning, but something needs to be done. This is this editors second trip here (third if you count the SaltyBoatr block) and I believe that this behavior is not going to stop without something being done. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It should surprise no editor on the AWB page who has been active there in the past 2 or 3 months that I did reach out to Sue Rangell for help - but not because of her stance on gun control; I didn't know her stance. I chose her because she is apparently a female (like me, and the AWB editors are apparently male) and she says on her user page that she is "pretty good at negotiating and mediating disputes before they turn into edit wars."

When I asked Sue for help, what I was looking for was someone to do what was described in this essay under Prevention and resolution, Talk page (scroll down):

"If you see an editor has been isolated on a talk page and is becoming agitated, feel free to enter the discussion and exert a calming influence. This will often break the battleground dynamic and reduce tension so issues can be resolved without edit warring...."

I was physically sick when she started attacking me. I felt isolated, and I was scared to keep looking for a mentor if she was an example of the kind of help I could expect. I began to think that this treatment was a rite of passage on WP, kind of like a hazing, and that every editor could expect to be banned or blocked before they would be fully accepted.

I had decided to let this discussion roll off into an archive without further comment, but I am now asking: How does one start a "boomerang"? What are my options? I just want Sue to stop! Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that. I am not pursuing a boomerang. Lightbreather (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre

Things grow worse. The WP community has responded disappointingly slowly to an appeal for help in fending off an attack on the well-established, authoritative and important article about the U.S. Army’s killing of refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950. An earlier appeal bore a link to a bill of particulars about the depredations by one "WeldNeck," a U.S. Army partisan who has made an incredible 79 edits deleting crucial facts and stuffing the article with untruths and irrelevant smokescreens in order to whitewash the events. But NOW a username-less attacker from the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, a “contributor” who has been repeatedly and repeatedly cited for vandalism and recklessness at many pages, has begun hacking away at the facts of the No Gun Ri Massacre. Surely some speedy action can be taken to protect this article and deal with these obvious POV intervenors. Who will help? Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Editors making changes that Cjhanley doesnt agree with does not constitute an emergency. And I agree, my edits were incredible. WeldNeck (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cjhanley, who arguably has a COI with respect to this article, has been forum-shopping this issue in multiple places. I see nothing "urgent" here. The IP's edits have been removed. There hasn't even been enough of them to warrant page protection, although considering the IP's history, a block might be warranted. As for WeldNeck, if Cjhanley thinks this is something more than a content dispute, then he needs to provide far more evidence of misconduct than he has.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. But if you have reviewed the litany of outrageous edits by WeldNeck, I'm surprised you see a need for any more evidence of his POV and bad-faith conduct on this WP article. To me, one example alone should be conclusive. He gratuitously inserted baseless allegations against the news organization that first confirmed the No Gun Ri Massacre, gratuitous not only because they were untrue, but because they don't belong in the article to begin with, since they add nothing to our knowledge of the subject. Then when he was met in good faith more than halfway, with the nonsense allowed to stand but with two sentences inserted with links to two articles refuting the allegations, he rushed to delete the new insertion. This is not outrageous misconduct? Beyond that, other simple examples include his deletion of sources because, he openly declared in doing so, he doesn't like their political views. This is acceptable behavior? If Wikipedia doesn't police such advocacy editing better, I don't see how it hopes to maintain any reputation for reliability. (And please see mine to Drmies below). Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

• Well, I don't know about that, WeldNeck--"An explanation to why the refugee column was strafed was never confirmed by investigators" isn't very good English. In fact, it's bad English. I also see POV and MOS violations in your November edits, so I wouldn't pound my own chest too hard. The IP's edits are clearly indicative of POV editing (though, Cjhanely, you would do well to head this off at the pass by supplying a reference), and I'll leave an additional note on their talk page before I peruse the rest of their edits.

  Cjhanley, your problems with WeldNeck can't easily be dealt with in this forum; WP:DR or WP:3O might be better suited, and talk page discussion of course. Now, that talk page is kind of fun, if you don't feel inclined to actually read it. Accusations of POV, socking, etc abound, and there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of uninvolved editors that can help the thing along. Anyway, I think I've done about as much as I can do as an administrator. The IP hasn't done enough damage to warrant a block or semi-protection, so until then there's nothing to do. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Pounding my chest ... ha ha ... I am being sarcastic. I agree my English sucks at times. Need to work on that. WeldNeck (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I get paid handsomely to mess with people's writing. I'm sure we can come to some agreement. Bbb made a good point about Cjhanley's forum shopping--really, what this article needs is more uninvolved editors who can study the sources and perhaps smooth the waters. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. You’re correct, of course, that additional objective – and perceptive – editors are needed, neither victims’ representatives nor U.S. military reps. And, for the record, please understand that the facts of the No Gun Ri Massacre have been under attack for more than a decade from institutions and members of the U.S. military. That’s what’s happening in this case, as would be clear to anyone studying the serious damage WeldNeck has been doing, including his reverts of efforts to correct that damage, and Tuesday’s outrageous attack from the U.S. Army’s Fort Huachuca.

But where are those editors? When they don’t materialize, and when a contributor like WeldNeck repeatedly flouts the “good faith” principles of WP, shouldn’t the WP hierarchy step in, familiarize itself with what’s going on and take some action? After all, this is not some bio of an obscure Victorian architect or feature on a subspecies of warblers. This is a big deal, a major 20th-century war crime, and the WP article on it is being openly transformed into a falsehood-packed apologia for the crime (as well as a bloated, increasingly incoherent mess as WeldNeck dumps irrelevant and often false material into it). I appreciate your suggestion about trying other avenues for help but, frankly, it’s getting tiresome being sent from pillar to post by admins (from Edit Warring to ANI to NPOV and back again). At this point, even a caution to WeldNeck to “play nice” and accept facts and falsehoods for what they are when they’re incontrovertibly presented to him would be welcome. Thanks again. (By the way, you noted in your comment above a need for a particular bit of sourcing; that fact is, indeed, sourced higher in the article, or at least was before WeldNeck began wreaking his havoc. But the reference can be repeated.) Charles J. Hanley 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

• Repeating that reference is a good idea. Where to find those editors? Perhaps in the Wikipedia MILHIST project. An IP attack like the one you signaled, I'm not so worried about that--I've seen that in the Fort Benning related articles and it's nothing we can't handle. But you and WeldNeck, if you two were slightly less antagonistic toward each other (I'm not saying anything about who's right and wrong here) you could probably work it out. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts are appreciated. Not to belabor, but to put it succinctly: I'm a journalist who for 40-plus years has made factual exposition my life and who knows virtually every knowable detail about the No Gun Ri Massacre. WeldNeck is U.S. military, former, active or reserve, who came to the article knowing only elements of the U.S. military's whitewash of the U.S. military's mass killing of refugees at No Gun Ri, and who is on a mission, self-appointed or assigned, to gut as much negative material as possible and to blow smokescreens to otherwise obscure the facts. As for working things out, one need only consider what happened after WeldNeck gratuitously inserted false allegations against the news organization that first confirmed the massacre -- gratuitous because they don't belong in the article in the first place, since they add nothing to our knowledge of the subject. When he was met in good faith more than halfway, with the nonsense allowed to stand but with two sentences inserted linking to articles refuting the allegations, he rushed to delete the new insertion. How does one work things out with such disrespect and defiance? How does Wikipedia itself expect respect when this kind of behavior is tolerated? Charles J. Hanley 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Cjhanley, could you please provide a link/diff for your assertion about Weldneck's personal background ("U.S. military, former, active or reserve" & "U.S. army partisan")? If it's somewhere above in this thread, I didn't see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this matters. There are several million active duty, reserve, retired and discharged former military in the US. WeldNeck (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not really in the business of trying to figure out who someone is. Their edits should speak for themselves. (And I urge you not to hypothesize too much.) I'll give you an example: editors here on gun articles could have found my personal opinion on guns and gun ownership in various places, but I'll give a Wikikitty to the first editor who can prove that an edit I made in an gun-related article is not neutral. I do not wish to discredit someone's edits based solely on some hypothesis about the editor's previous employment. I think the normal processes for solving problems in contentious articles ought to be followed, and that includes WP:RFC for individual edits/paragraphs/sources/suggestions. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#Weldneck, what on Earth do you think you're doing? you can search for the term DFP (defensive fighting position) and you'll find WeldNeck boasting several times of having dug many foxholes and having spent considerable time in South Korea, clear signs of U.S. Army service in the ROK. Beyond that, he has loaded the article with U.S. military shorthand and jargon inscrutable to ordinary readers (hopefully to be cleaned up someday), typical of career U.S. military men. One of those DFP references in Talk -- "If you still want believe that one could hide several hundred bodies in a dozen DFP's (I've dug lots of them, that aint gonna happen)" -- is indicative of the impossibility of engaging him sensibly, since it was never suggested in the article or Talk that "several hundred bodies" were hidden in a "dozen" foxholes. By the way, I just noticed that his Talk page has been purged of repeated earlier warnings against his edit warring, POV editing and defamatory material at other articles. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 18:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Mr Hanley, deficiencies in the AP's reporting on this subject have been well documented. I need not rehash them here, the talk page lays them out quite well. The 'defamatory' material you continue to object to is all well sourced. WeldNeck (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that an administrator (or even other experienced editor) is likely to read the wall of text on the article talk page in response to a complaint at ANI, you're sadly mistaken. Even worse, responses are interpolated without signatures, and I got dizzy as to was saying what to whom. Maybe if you could cite just two reliable sources that note these "deficiencies", someone might look at them. Better, one of you ought to focus on one content dispute and take it to dispute resolution, as Drmies suggested above. It's unlikely anything will be resolved here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources, I can do better than that: Salon, SF Gate, A military historian's take, NY Times, and many more. WeldNeck (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't read any of the sources you linked to carefully (rejected Amazon out of hand), but after skimming the one I found most telling was published by SF Gate. I think this brings me back to my original comments. It seems to me that Cjhanley has an almost-imposssible-to-overcome conflict of interest with respect to this article. That doesn't mean, WeldNeck, that you don't also have a conflict or an agenda, but it's not as self-evident. And I come back to my recommendation (and Drmies's) that you use dispute resolution to resolve the content issues. You can also raise the COI issue at WP:COIN if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a prime example of the mockery WeldNeck has made of Wikipedia. Bbb23 Please step back a moment: This article is about the No Gun Ri Massacre, not about a vendetta 13 years ago by a 7th Cavalry officer (the unit that committed the massacre) against the news organization that first confirmed this blot on the record of "my regiment," as he called it. His terrible fabrications were not only false, but are totally irrelevant to this article in 2013, which is based on countless journalistic, academic and government investigations of the facts carried out since then. (Even the premise of the SFGate article you read is flatly false: The publisher was warned that he should fact-check the recklessly irresponsible author, pure and simple). If professional, objective fact-finders (journalists, academics) are deemed to have COI on subjects they have mastered, I daresay Wikipedia is in trouble. As for Drmies's observation regarding figuring out editors' identities, I understand this is a basic WP principle (one much of the online world has serious trouble with), but certainly when a vandal on this subject, a U.S. Army war crime, is traced to an IP address at the home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, the ID can't be ignored. And when the pseudonymous WeldNeck brazenly, with nary a notice, throws out evidence of the U.S. Army cover-up, sugarcoats "kill" orders by misrepresenting them, etc. etc. etc., and then reverts efforts to restore the self-evident and well-sourced truth, how can one not wonder -- and, in my case, know -- where he's coming from? Meantime, I remain open and transparent, and willing to work with any open-minded and non-flag-waving intervenor. Charles J. Hanley 16:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

This is typical of you Mr Hanley. You try to convince others that Bateman's only contribution to this article has to do with his "grudge" with you and not the far more relevant fact that he has a well received and award winning narrative of the events. WeldNeck (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Cjhanley, you figured out how to use the notification system to ping me; congratulations! I don't have much new to say except (enviously) you write very well. If you open this up to dispute resolution, perhaps you'll find an editor - or even more than one editor - with whom you can work toward improving the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb; I have little to add. I think we need to look at this as a content issue first of all, and that's not for this board. Is there an admin around to see if they agree with this, and to close the thread? Cjhanley, you can't always get what you want, I think, but we're suggesting there are better avenues--so that you may get what you need. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Battleground and PA originating from Crusades

Can we get some additional eyes at User talk:Joanakestlar and Talk:Crusades, please? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the sources for that? Apparently you need them for every thing! Oh no. I'm typing without a source! LOL Joanakestlar (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for edit warring and disruption. John Reaves 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring and personal attacks at Crusades

User:Joanakestlar has repeatedly added unsourced, POV content to the Crusades article. The additions have been removed, and the user has been asked to discuss the dispute on the talk page. The user has reverted the removal of content several times in the last couple of weeks, including three times in the past hour or so ([73], [74], [75]). {Whoops, make that four times in an hour and a half: [76].} The user has responded on the talk page with attacks on other editors and defiance of WP guidelines. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice style. Well denounced... Joanakestlar (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be related to Stalwart111, Oddbodz, Stephan Schulz , or DeCausa, would you? Like, for instance, IP related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This user's on the 5th revert. Can someone block this pest quick? DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected. I would have been inclined to block Joanakestlar, but this personal attack by DeCausa makes it obvious that we've got misbehavior on both sides. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• You are late. Joanakestlar was blocked yesterday, and reblocked for a week after further outbreaks on her talk page. I'm a bit confused why generic "misbehavior on both sides" is a reason for page protection - even if one or more editors lose patience with a single disruptive editor, that does not mean that there is no consensus on the page, and it does not mean that both sides are equally edit-warring. And, just for the record, if I am also Stalwart111, Oddbodz, and DeCausa, my other personalities must have a heck of a busy life - I don't see how I could fit their contributions into the too-short periods where this personality is not in conscious control of this body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I also object to this characterization. Joanakestlar attacked several editors as racist and bigots, accuses us of being multiple-socks, disregards and shows contempt for WP guidelines, adds disputed material repeatedly despite pleas to discuss, then rather than discussing lashes out at others. These last two additions pointed out by Stephan Schulz are particularly offensive. Then one editor calls her a pest and that constitutes "misbehavior on both sides"? Quite unwarranted. At least the page will not be subject to further disruption. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure Nyttend has seen these additional comments but it would be good to get his perspective. I also, personally, disagree with the suggestion that calling a pest a pest is a personal attack. What Nyttend probably didn't see was the personal attacks and vandalism on my userpage (not talk page) and other users' pages and that the edit warring has been going on for a few days with Joanakestlar on one "side" and about 5 or 6 other editors on the "other side". She then went on the attack on the article talk page suggesting people were anti-white and anti-Christian (a repeat of her claim on my userpage which includes lists of Catholicism-related articles I've created/edited). I'd be happy to go on record and say Joanakestlar is a pest, a vandal and probably a troll just looking to rile some people up. A block was the right remedy to prevent further disruption. Full temporary protection probably wasn't necessary after that (and is probably now preventing some of the good collegial editing between those 5 or 6 editors and others). After my initial reverts, DeCausa probably became the most active editor dealing with the edit-warring. He WP:AGF'd for as long as possible and then lost patience. Nyttend, I'd ask that you reconsider. Stalwart111 12:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. In what kind of situation is "pest" ever appropriate? Never, and defending such a person is likewise not appropriate. I don't care what another person's doing: you do this, and you get warned, leading up to sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Pseudo-banning the word "pest" (when WP:PESTER redirects to the Meta article about identifying trolls) is way over the top. I can't think of a way that conforms to the community's expectations with regard to WP:NPA or WP:CIV. In fact it is entirely contrary to accepted ideas like WP:SPADE. If your decisions to protect and warn were based on an editor's use of the word "pest" then both were bad calls. Sorry. Stalwart111 21:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Nyttend has just given me a uw-npa3 warning on my talk page for calling the blocked, abusive troll (almost all of whose 84 edits are simply disruptive) "a pest" following their latest spate of making 5 blatatantly POV reverts in the space of an hour (against 4 different established editors in good standing) and leaving abusive messages on editors' talk pages!!! Per Stephan Schulz, should I share it with my socks Laszlo Panaflex, Stalwart111, Oddbodz etc? DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This litany of contemptuous edits versus noting the violating editor as a pest (defined by Wiktionary as "an annoying person"): A truly astonishing standard of false equivalence is established here. Is it also misbehavior to call a troll a troll? A vandal a vandal? This head of the five-headed sock-monster is reeling at this defense of the pe-, er, "annoying person" who told us all to eff off in the name of Christianity. I would reiterate the citation by one of the other heads to Matthew 7:3 and marvel at the strength of the invisibility cloak of that beam. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sluffs blocked

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 just blocked Sluffs (talk · contribs) indefinitely for this edit, especially the last statement which indicates a battleground approach to the project after being blocked three previous times, the last time for a month with a firm warning for a much longer block for the same issues, which included personal attacks and threats. He's clearly not here to constructively build the encyclopedia and there is no point in keeping an editor like him around in the project. Thanks Secret ^account 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After reviewing their edits, that looks like a good call to me. -- The Anome (talk) 02:03, 14 November 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.

Advert

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.

---

Dominikcrank (talk · contribs) has popped up and is advertizing himself as a master forger. It has been so long since I dealt with this sort of thing that I have forgotten which noticeboard is best taking care of it. Please feel free to move it to the correct one with thanks. 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef and deleted Secret ^account 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Secret, thanks for the quick action in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 13 November 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.

Arbor to SJ is removing "Football Program" information from "Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College"

Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arbor to SJ is not responding to talks. They only delete them. I have requested clarification and they delete the request. Arbor to SJ claims the information is a copyright violation. This is incorrect. I have created this information on my own. I have absolutely no clue on how to deal with a user like this. requesting Arbor to SJ be blocked from editing "Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerb (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reported both of you to ANEW for edit warring. Each of you have 10 reverts. GregJackP Boomer! 06:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at AtoSJ's talk page, but I did re-revert Hammerb's addition again and left him a note on edit warring and a strong message about the suitability of the content he is adding. (A complete game by game breakdown of the school's entire football history, back to the 1910's.) Due to the detail, I can't really see how it could not be a copyvio, although I have no idea the source. John from Idegon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but remember that a revision of a copyvio doesn't count as a revert for the purpose of determining 3RR or EW. In may, in fact, not be a copyvio, but it could be a good faith belief. As is often the case, some communication would help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for a week. Copyright violation is an exemption from edit warring, but I don't see how it would apply in this instance. First, there's no proof of the source. Second, it's really just a list of facts, which are not copyrightable, so the only way it could be a violation would be based on the structure of the material. Thus, AtoSJ's reverts are not appropriate. But I was reluctant to block them based on the obvious garbage that doesn't belong in the article, and I didn't feel I could block Hammerb only, so ...--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can unlock the article now, Bbb23. He is now trying to create a freestanding article with exactly the same "garbage" content. I declined it at AfC and left in the notes advice to study other football program articles before resubmitting it. For a little school, the school in question does have a fairly interesting football history and could probably support a properly written football program article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

John, forgive me, but I don't see the connection between the AFC submission and the edit war at the main article. Good reasons to unlock the article are (1) promises by the battling parties that they won't edit the article or (2) the parties have reached an agreement or consensus. Has either of those things happened?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Bbb23. I hope you didn't feel I was telling you how to do your job. In the discussion on the talk page , as slim as it is, Hammerb indicated that he had gone ahead and created a separate article. Per your above rationale, altho it takes two to tango and both editors were EW, there was at least some weak logic behind Arbor to SJ's actions. So since H has moved on and Arbor to SJ was only responding to his poor edits (albeit in a very wrong fashion), and there were no other editors involved in the EW; the need for protection has passed. Of course your mileage may vary! You are the one with the mop; I was just letting you know he had moved on. BTW, there is no lock template on the article. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to all the parties involved. I truly had no idea that expanding the football history of my Alma Matter would lead to all of this. I had always assumed that Wikipedia was a place where different people could come together and using combined efforts would be able to build something that everyone could use. I would like to apologize to everyone that I am apparently completely and utterly wrong on my views. When I added the complete football record to Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College's page I knew that it was pretty rough. However I also thought that the spirit of Wikipedia was setup in such a way that if someone viewed something on Wikipedia that was a little rough that things could be edited and cleaned up and NOT BLINDLY DELETED without just cause or reason. I truly had no idea that it would be considered "garbage" by so many people. That "garbage" represents 13 years worth of work that I toiled over. I called newspapers, contacted College Information Assurance Officers, received the blessing to proceed by the College Information Officer and the Dean of Finance. And in the separate page that I submitted (which got rejected) I cited each and every one of my sources. I even scanned and posted those sources for everyone to see. I do not see how a football score can be considered "copyrighted" but since everyone here refers to my work as "garbage" then I guess garbage is garbage. Again I truly had no idea that adding the information that I did would cause the backlash that it did. The information that I posted was available nowhere online and I simply wanted to change that fact. I actually own a site that focuses on sports statistics so I simply posted it there. The best thing about posting "garbage" to a site that you own is that when visitors find mistakes in that "garbage" they actually contact me about them, they don't try and delete the entire page. In closing I just want to say that I still respect Wikipedia and everything it stands for, I simply no longer respect it's admins or users. Don't bother posting a response, I will never read it. If I hurt anyone's feeling don't bother blocking my account, just delete it. If you have something to say to me or about anything I post online or about my passions for sports statistics don't talk ABOUT me, talk TO me. If your feeling are hurt don't respond to this posing, just delete it. I had no idea that football scores would lead to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammerb (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This attack is hardly an apology, and I have issued a warning to Hammerb for it. The material that Hammerb collected is now available online as he's posted it to a blog. After I read the above, I was planning on saying something conciliatory until I read the attack on the other editor's talk page. Just in case Hammerb is reading this, which wouldn't suprise me, your account cannot be deleted. It can, however, be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism anon

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

---

Hi,
I'm reporting a case of a recent vandalism spree by an anon 202.126.109.210. His vandalism can be seen here, here, here, here, and I could go on, as there are many more. He has been warned many times recently.
Ben (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that WP:AIV would be more suitable for this case…
Ben (talk) 02:49, 15 November 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.

Meat accusation

I do like to hear from more experienced editors that is this meatpuppetry (the messages given to the newbie by two different users)? or as Sminthopsis84 says "acting as a pack" (also)? I tried to convey this to Sminthopsis84 but looks like I am not good at it. Though I am obviously here to discuss this meat or tag team accusation but I don't mind if someone wants to discuss the biting issue. But before that please look at the article's last two-three months history. -- SMS ^Talk 06:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Smsarmad: No accusation of meatpuppetry was actually made, implied or otherwise. Sminthopsis84 wasn't implying collusion between editors, and wasn't trying to make it personal with you (until your message was left at Sminthopsis84's talk page, and even then it was in self-defense). It appears to me by the context in the threads that what was mean't was that the new editor (Ct205, with just two edits made in good faith), would feel ganged up upon, as by a pack (of wolves, or something else threatening). You made use of the phrase "If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing", which doesn't appear to be constructive, and to a newbie would clearly feel hostile and bewildering; additionally, the edits made by Ct205 appeared to be constructive.

To give some context, here is what Sminthopsis84 actually said to Faizan, the other half of the so-termed 'pack', and to which you were pointed to, and urged by Sminthopsis84 to read:

"Biting the newbies, for example this person who made exactly two edits. A newbie is likely, when immediately reverted, to try again. You and a colleague came down very hard on that person, accusing them of unconstructive editing, and then of edit warring. What the person actually did, was to make a finer division of headings, to separate two periods of history rather than leaving them lumped together (yes, they deleted two photos, but you could have put those back rather than make a blanket reversion). And yes, your "welcome" messages are not without an implied threat. A new editor who offends nobody, usually doesn't receive one of those "welcome" messages.

"Possibly responding to all edits from anonymous IPs as if they were vandalism, and templating the talk page of that IP, possibly every time that you revert an edit. Anonymous IPs are an extremely valuable resource to wikipedia. There are many people who have never edited before, but who have real, valuable knowledge to contribute. They often try a single edit as an experiment, and if immediately slapped over the wrist by you are unlikely to try again. Slow down! Think first about whether you have really understood what the anon did and possible reasons for it, even if they have made a mistake. A good rule is to never template someone on their first edit."

I just don't see the accusation that you see. I think it would be an injudicious stretch to interpret this as an accusation of meatpuppetry. Hamamelis (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the wording of my message was "unconstructive" to a newbie, I suggest you should alter it at {{uw-ewsoft}} or discuss it at WT:UTM. The uw-ewsoft that I guess was specifically written for newbies is well worded and intimidates a newbie the possible fall out of such behavior in a soft tone as compared to other edit warring messages. Now coming to the point whether that message/warning was warranted or not. A new user coming to continue an edit war on an article that has attracted a lot of socks of a single user in recent 2-3 months, with very first edit a revert and the second also the same, so yes I think that such a user needs to made aware of our edit warring policy with such a message.

As for Sminthopsis84 message at Faizan's talk and removal of the welcome message from the newbie's talk it is very clear that he/she is having some dispute with Faizan due to which he/she unnecessarily chose to drag me in. Calling two editors "acting as a pack" and "pack of editors" implies tag team in my point of view specially when that is based on similar edits of those users on the same page. -- SMS ^Talk 14:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Hamamelis. I have had numerous pleasant interactions with Sminthopsis84, so in a sense am "involved", albeit not in this particular issue. My view is that Smsarmad shouldn't have opened a thread here, particularly not under the heading "Meat accusation"; Smsarmad raised this issue first on Sminthopsis84's talk page, where Sminthopsis84 replied including the words "I stand by my statement that the two editors behaved together as a "pack", with very similar actions, and that that is not appropriate in any context. Conscientious wikipedians read what others have written and do not duplicate it. We are all drowning in talk-page material, "less is more". That, to me, shows that Sminthopsis84 regarded the "pack" editors as having similar actions which were careless and thoughtless, which is far removed from an accusation of meatpuppetry. Use of the word "pack" shouldn't be automatically equated with such an accusation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Behavioural issues with User:MaxBrowne

MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) has been demonstrating some behavioural problems at WP:CHESS and elsewhere. After creating the article Gordon Crown, one editor tagged a portion of its lead with a WP:WEASEL template ([77]), which led to two reverts by MaxBrowne (and one by the other editor): [78] [79] [80]. A few weeks later I came across this article and made this edit to it, which MaxBrowne did not revert right away, but discussed at WT:CHESS ([81]). This lead to a discussion ([82]) in which I tried to explain to him the policy WP:NPV and the guideline WP:WTA. I failed in this attempt, and MaxBrowne called my behaviour "anal" ([83]). He then posted the non sequitur "I'm kind of irritated about this so I'm just going to restore those 'promising' and 'premature' descriptions" ([84]), as if irritation were a justification for disregarding the NPV and WTA pages, and restored the contested portion of the aforementioned lead ([85]).

After another editor tweaked the article a bit ([86]), I placed another weasel-words template in the lead ([87]). MaxBrowne reacted to that template with an edit that I consider trolling and a violation of WP:POINT: [88]. Since I wanted input from a wider group of editors on this (being inspired by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 24#Inappropriate), I criticised his behaviour at WT:CHESS ([89]), and MaxBrowne removed it, claiming that it was a personal attack ([90]). He kept removing my comment ([91]), even though I repeatedly informed him that he was violating WP:TPO ([92] [93]).

(Also note that WP:TPO says "[It is allowed to remove] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. [Emphasis added]" So even if my post was uncivil ["immaturity of the worst kind" and "pretty bad image" could be construed as such], this probably does not justify his blanking.)

Incidentally, another user has already agreed (at least partially) with my assessment of MaxBrowne's behaviour: [94].

Thank you for reading this, and I hope this issue can be resolved in a sensible manner. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IMHO, it looks like both parties are at fault here. Yes, the little addition in the Brown article was trolly, but creating a whole new section on the WP: CHESS talk page just to call someone out isn't helpful either. Anyways, this doesn't look like anything actionable, so best to just hand out some trouts, take a momentary break and move on. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree broadly with the evaluation that Admiral Caius made. Both Toccata quarta and MaxBrowne have made valuable edits to our chess articles, so I am a bit saddened to see this falling out and sincerely hope that this is temporary. In any case the issues here are isolated, and I do not think any sanctions are in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for emergency shutdown of bot

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.

---

ProteinBoxBot (talk · contribs) is making a large number of clearly erroneous edits (see for example diff). I have notified both the bot and the bot owner and the second bot owner. In the meantime, I would appreciate if an admin would temporarily block the bot until the bot owners have had time to correct the problem. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot is blocked until it can be fixed. GB fan 11:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action. Boghog (talk) 11:14, 15 November 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.

Editor Vcorani - Nazi flag on his userpage, creating an article to house a rejected edit, 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.

---

Vcorani (talk · contribs), who has suggested on his talk page that some editors wear swastika armbands, has now put the 1933 German flag on his userpage calling it the Wikipedia flag. A read of his talk page shows other insults and a number of problems (see also User_talk:NeilN/Archive_13#Vcorani). His contributions aren't exactly stellar, and his latest article creation is Cold case review, created when an edit of his at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories was reverted solely to house his edit (and now redirected). See the discussion at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#NON-CONSPIRACY : THE 'ACCIDENTAL' FATAL SHOT. I'm not at all convinced we are going to ever get much if anything useful out of this editor. A review of his contributions show most being reverted, and those that aren't, eg [95], being dubious at best. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor appears to be a conspiracy nut-cum-troll. Neither part of that is welcome here (or anywhere, for that matter). He equates Wikipedia with Nazism, presumably because his non-encyclopedic edits and views have been (correctly) reverted/challenged. GiantSnowman 19:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support indefinite hard block and no email/TP access whatsoever with extreme prejudice. This editor is very clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

His user page contains copies of his contributions. Basically his MO seems to be seeing something on YouTube/TV and adding a bit of trivia mixed in with some personal observations. Example: "On 17/8/13 on a freeview channel in the UK was shown a documentary on the man behind the wicca religion. It was 45min long an featured archive footage. It was presented by a professor who gave a respectful summary. It also showed the original 'book of shadows'." He's been doing this for years and no indication of wanting (or is unable) to follow Wikipedia norms (e.g., lack of signatures, idiosyncratic references). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit constitutes either egregious trolling or egregious lack of clue. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking over their editing history, I'm inclined to think it's lack of clue. There seem to be a lot of good faith but unencyclopedic edits, often without sourcing or with poor sourcing. The user has not contributed much of value to the project or engaged seriously on his/her editing style. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a helpful reminder Wikipedia is not censored CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither are we utterly fucking stupid. WE have editors here of all shapes and religions, therefore removed the Nazi flag and the idiocy, someone else can decide on their ultimate fate. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Have they had a chance to respond? GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that someone who users the swastika as "the flag of Wikipedia" doesn't need "a chance to respond" when it's removed (although the editor above felt it necessary to restore it). They can, of course, respond through their talkpage; they're not blocked yet (although it may not be long, looking down). Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block

• Support Clearly a trolling vandal. KonveyorBelt 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Part of me thinks they're editing in good faith most of the time, but their editing style is problematic nonetheless and needs to be addressed before they can edit again. A further look shows a fundamental lack of understanding about Wikipedia. Support block without reservation. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per obvious NOTHERE and POLEMIC. - MrX 20:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support block. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Editor has had plenty of chances and advice and doesn't seem to get content needs to have an encyclopedic tone and reverting him is not some kind of censorship but the upholding of Wikipedia standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per NOTHERE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support ... and I'm having my doubts about the CombatWombat below if they honestly believe that removing a swastika was not the correct thing to do ES&L 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• I just declined an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite censoring user talk page.

Black Kite has been reverting a user talk page, I way that violoates WP:NOTCENSORED [96] [97] [[98], someone needs to stop him. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, someone clearly needs to stop me removing a swastika from a user talk page captioned as "the flag of Wikipedia". Quick, everyone, stop me. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Bullshit. Someone needs to encourage Black Kite. NOTCENSORED does not mean allow anything, anywhere, anytime. Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I propose that we shower Black Kite with barnstars and promptly kick Vcorani to the curb for this obvious trolling. - MrX 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• CombatWombat42 - WP:NOTCENSORED concerns content in articles. We do not remove reliably sourced material from articles simply because they may be offensive to others. It does not apply to any random polemic opinion held by an angry editor.--v/r - TP 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This, 100%. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone one step further and removed the content from the user page, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. GiantSnowman 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• It is longstanding practice that users are given wide latitude on their own userpages, but gratuitous provocations and unfounded aspersions are considered disruptive wherever they are placed. Accusing Wikipedia of being a Nazi organization is overstepping the line by a wide margin. I endorse Black Kite's removal of the image, and GiantSnowman's removing the material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree, but I appear to be alone in that opintion. Just because you disagree with speech dosn't mean you remove it, you argue with it (try to convinse them that they are wron) or ignore it(accept that they are dumb/a troll), it is up to each person to make their judgment as to what value to assign it. In this case it makes it pretty clear (to me) that Vcorani is an idiot, but he still has the right to be an idiot. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

He has a right to be whatever he wants to be, however, the minute he a) insults others (i.e. by suggesting we wear swastika armbands) or b) offends others intentionally, then he has earned the right to be whatever he wants to be elsewhere but here - those are basic rules of this PRIVATE website that he agreed to ES&L 22:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Simply put - allowing people to spout hate-speech does not promote a collegiate environment. Allowing to run unchecked would attract more and more who believe in those views and actively seek out places that allow them to spew their ideas. They firmly believe they are correct and you cannot change their minds. The result is many, probably most editors will leave. There are places where just about anything goes. This is not that place. Ravensfire (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not MySpace or Usenet. It supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Sheesh.... Dave Dial (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef per consensus here. No point in keeping the trolls around. Secret ^account 23:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Endorse actions by Black Kite & Secret. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 16 November 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.

Government Plates

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.

---

• Government Plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page protection has been requested, but there's an extraordinary amount of vandalism at present. This needs to be protected and dialed back to some acceptable version. JNW (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Well, at least the semi-protection is done. I think it was changed to revert vandalism so may be close to what it should be. JodyB _talk 20:27, 15 November 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 Emir Jamshedparineetichopra

• Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs)

Looks like one more for the sock farm discussed here, and here). Basically it looks like a never-ending sock farm to add poorly sourced and promotional material to articles related to Pakistani entertainment.

Since Ponyo is on wikibreak, I thought it best to bring up here. As I'm only keeping an eye on a small number of the articles affected, it would be nice to get more eyes on the situation as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm online (very briefly) and this is definitely another sock, so I've blocked it. The edits will need to be checked thoroughly, if anyone has some extra time, as they often introduce copyright violations and falsify references. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Greek Alphabeta

• GreekAlphabeta (talk · contribs)

Banned user tinkering with Greek alphabet and its archaical letters. 165.254.183.37 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikinger? --Shirt58 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the GreekAlphabeta account isn't Wikinger. The reporting IP here is. Same old, same old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf.☼. I thought it best to check before I blocked the wrong person. (BTW, after a lot of work, my articlespace contribs are finally on the right side of 50%! There's only a finite number French perfumes and Japanese rugby players, though.) Thanks again. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record - it appears they continued, as an IP which has now also been blocked, 2A02:25A9:0:E78B:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs). (They also trolled me a bit, probably because they saw my IP in the discussion below this one). 88.104.4.74 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and 165.254.183.37 (talk · contribs). 88.104.4.74 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan

Hi, I'm posting here because I do not wish to breach 3RR - despite it being about negative info on a BLP. Hope you can help, I will keep it as short as I can;

• Andrew Gilligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• UsamahWard (talk · contribs)

Gilligan is a Brit journalist.

This user has been very persistent in adding controversial negative info to the BLP Andrew Gilligan.

I have tried to discuss the specific points on the talk page and on BLPN; however, (s)he keeps adding aspersions without consensus.

The most-recent argument is about whether or not the lead section should mention that Gilligan was involved with the high-profile (Brit press) issue, called theLeveson inquiry. Indeed he was involved, but I deny it's appropriate to include it in the lead section of the article - because it is a relatively minor incident in his career.

Despite ongoing discussion, and no consensus, the user UsamahWard has added this information many times over [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] etc.

Attempts at discussion: Talk:Andrew_Gilligan#Introduction_and_Leveson

I have no problem discussing this, but I object to the facts being added whilst discussion is ongoing; I've suggested at RfC - the problem is, this user insists on adding it whilst it is under discussion.

The user has a history of trying very hard, over long periods of time, to introduce any and all negative 'facts' to this article despite weak sources, SYNTH, OR, and various other things.

I will not 'revert' again, as I hope others will have a look.

Thanks for reading - I tried to keep this report as short as I could. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR: Brit politics, POV-pusher

88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The investigative report is indeed notable and worthy of mention - it is going to stay in. This "sexed up" one seems to be fairly typical criticism and while it is not a BLP violation, it is contentious. Now with that being said, I'm going to remove the one line and keep the rest on the good faith assumption it is undue. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we don't post things in this BLP until there's consensus? I think that's the applicable policy. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This 'claim' in the BLP is a great example of the danger of Wikipedian 'spin' - you can see that if you google "Andrew Gilligan" "best known" - lots of hits show he's appparently 'best known' for this one thing; however, they're just copypasta of this ridiculous wikipedia article!

If you use Google news, or search elsewhere, you discover this is a minor part in the career of a journalist.

Putting it in the lead section is inappropriate - it's one of 1000s of stories he's written, and has not been commented upon more than many others.

As I said, it's exactly like saying, "Britney Spears is an American singer known for shaving off her hair"

Sure, she is well-known for that, but it belongs in the body-text, not the lede.

Anyway - this dispute belongs in a discussion - an RfC or whatever;

Meanwhile - per WP:BLP - this does not belong in the article.

UsamahWard (talk · contribs) has been inserting negative 'facts', or 'spin' to this BLP for years - and does not appear to comprehend the BLP policy; instead, s/he just waits a while and puts it back.

Frankly, I don't give a toss about Gilligan, but I do care about negative information on BLPs, and users 'getting away with' spinning BLP articles to a specific POV. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know Gilligan was responsible for the "sexed up" story breaking. It should stay in, I imagine he'd be rather proud of it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please use Talk:Andrew_Gilligan to discuss what should/n't be included. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is extremely disturbing and leads me to believe you are a potential sockpuppet of UsamahWard created specifically to comment on this discussion - an act which is strictly forbidden by policy. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I resent the IP editor's mischaracterisation of my I editing, I have added content to that article including positive, negative and neutral. I initiated the discussion on the talk page, and I posted an RFC. I also object to the IP editor's latest post on my talk page.

The repeated removal of this text from the introduction citing WP:BLP is inappropriate, as BLP requires removal where sourcing is weak, which doesn't apply here. The IP editor has constantly changed their reason for removing the text, initially protesting the phrase "best known", which had stood since 2004, and is supported by sources (examples in the talk page). Even so, in the spirit of finding a way forward I left out the word "best", but then even saying he was "known" for this issue was deemed objectionable by the IP editor. Despite the countless strong sources that make such a position untenable, I reworded it again so it didn't include the word known. Then the objection raised was that it was negative, which is a bizarre interpretation of the very neutral text; and even if it were, it still wouldn't be a problem, as explained in WP:LEAD. The IP editor's claim above that the story is a "relatively minor incident in his career" beggars belief; Andrew Gilligan himself says this was the biggest story of his career (strong source in talk page - interview in The Guardian). UsamahWard (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

...blah blah "stood since 2004" - sure, so it's been in Wikipedia for years, so it must be true...

In the "spirit of finding a wa forward", I suggest you try CONSENSUS before adding any more controversial disputed claims on the BLP.

DO you understand that basic principle?

Get consensus before you put it back. Get it?

88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPN and WP:AN/EW are thataway. Closing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BTDT, didn't help, Wikipedia:BLPN#Andrew_Gilligan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.4.74 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

All I want, really, is admins to tell UsamahWard (talk · contribs) not to add negative or controversial stuff to a BLP unless there's a consensus to add it. That's all. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If content is properly sourced, then no advance consensus is required, negative or not. However once a dispute starts consensus should be developed, rahter than edit warring indulged in. DES ^(talk) 23:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Gilligan is not now a journalist but "Cycling commissioner" (I think it is) for London, a political/local govt role. His involvement in the Iraq/Hutton affair is certainly what he is best known for, and it would be ridiculous to keep it out of the lead, though "best known" is hard to verify & probably not the way to put it. Before that he was a BBC radio correspondent, and suddenly his involvement was the lead story on the national news for a few days, recurring at intervals. Never has a journalist become the story more abruptly. But there at least two sides to that story & of course it should be treated properly. The ISP seems to have a clear NPOV agenda, possibly a COI? Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a NPOV agenda, but it may appear so because in the last few weeks I have been in disagreement with the IP editor's removals from the article, which have all and only been what s/he regards as negative, and only on the Andrew Gilligan entry. You can see from the history that I have added or tried to improve a range of content on that article, whether positive, negative or neutral. I have also initiated discussions on the talk page - the IP editor has not. Whatever the merits of the other discussions, on this issue the article itself is sufficiently well sourced to merit reference in the introduction to the BBC broadcast. You can see from the talk page there's many more sources, including one which cites Gilligan himself claiming this was the biggest story of his career. Despite all this, the IP editor claims above that the BBC broadcast is "a minor part in the career of a journalist", and on the talk page compares it in significance to Britney Spears shaving her legs!

I am concerned that only 6 minutes after this issue was raised here on ANI, the text under discussion was removed.

Finally, Gilligan works as cycling commissioner for 3 days a week, but he's still contributing as London editor for the Sunday Telegraph - this is probably worth adding to the article. UsamahWard (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"I don't have a NPOV agenda" - hahaha, well, that much is absolutely true!

Spears famously shaved her head, not her legs; e.g. [106] (NY Post), but we cover it in Britney_Spears#2007:_Personal_struggles_and_Blackout - not in the leader. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've been peripherally involved in this. I have repeatedly asked UsamahWard to await consensus before adding negative material to BLPs but it seems awfully important to him to continually add this stuff. It might benefit him to edit in another area for a while; would this rise to the level of a topic ban? --John (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that Gilligan's reporting on the "sexed-up" dossier is indeed very much what he's best-known for. And I don't see, by the way, that this is at all "negative" information. I would keep it in the lead. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, a single report by him on BBC Radio 4 was the subject of a massive scandal/controversy in the UK. Pretty much the only thing he's known for. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to give your opinion on Talk:Andrew Gilligan (preferably showing references to support it) - and of course if there's consensus to add it, that's absolutely fine.

However, ANI is not the right place to discuss content, and that's not why I came here.

UsamahWard has been inserting contentious material into that BLP without consensus, when others have disagreed, repeatedly, for years (e.g. in October 2010) - and he has been warned not to do so on many occasions (e.g. [107] [108]). 88.104.4.74 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

67.87.140.155 has returned

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.

---

Yes, he has returned. Disney's Greatest Hits, Talk:Walt Disney Classics, and Disney Magic (album), vandalism everywhere! Looks like this is a vandalisim only IP. He needs a one or two year block. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Alexf for six months. De728631 (talk) 00:41, 16 November 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.

unblock of User:ProteinBoxBot

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

---

Hello, I am the operator of ProteinBoxBot. Earlier today, our bot was reported here as clearly malfunctioning after making ~400 clearly erroneous edits, and the account was subsequently blocked. Thank you to Boghog for quickly noticing the error and to GB fan for promptly blocking us. After investigating the situation, we determined that the cause was the temporary failure of a particular web service on which we depend. That service is now operational again. We've also added checks to our bot so that any future failure of this web service will not result in malformed content being added to Wikipedia. We request the block be lifted so that the bot can be re-run. Rerunning the bot will overwrite all the previous errors. Please let me know if you need any other information. Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Best to manually request an unblock with the bot's account, unless talk page access has been disallowed for the duration of the block. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 11:31, 16 November 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.

141.91.136.41 aka Invitto/Hamburg73/Flow92 etc etc

This rather nutty German editor has gotten himself into an argument with me in Commons, where he refuses to communicate over something as uninteresting as a misunderstanding (his) of the Nissan Vanette's chassis numbers. This has then spilled over in de.wikipedia and as he has gotten himself blocked all over the place he is now targeting me here, wikihounding and reverting random edits of mine and messing up my userpage. I have not tried talking to him here, but have spent many hours doing so in Commons and in German Wiki.

User has already been blocked for sock puppetry and copyios in DE and in Commons, hence his many usernames (Invitto, Hamburg73, Flow92, Zweileben) which have spilled over into the English space. He has also vandalized my userpage in Commons in a similarly mature fashion. See here for an example of his tenacity and number of IPs used (including 141.91.136.41, which he has also used to vandalize here).

If there is anything else needed, please ask. The current main problems stem from the following ips:

• 141.91.136.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.91.136.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.91.136.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.204.154.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the most recent one, but a fat lot of good that will do. We can semi-protect your user page, if you like and if this continues. A range block should be investigated, and of course we can semi-protect their habitual targets--but all this is patchwork. I'm sorry you have to deal with this: hounding is clearly established, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - yeah, I am largely resigned to this continuing in some way or another but it feels good to have established a record if things should escalate later or whatever. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep the record then: if this gets archived, save a permanent link to its place in that archive for future reference, so we can quickly click back to it. And do let us know if semi-protection of for instance your user page is warranted--that's not a big deal at all. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Link fixing or disruptive editing?

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.

---

Since I've just been threatened that my behavior will be taken to AN/I, I decided to take it here myself to figure out whether I am improving or disrupting Wikipedia. What I have done is this: using WP:AWB, I scan various articles to find-replace external http:// links to YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and the Internet Archive with https:// (e.g. [109]). Those sites switched to HTTPS long time ago and use it by default, except for YouTube and the Internet Archive which still allow HTTP but encourage to use HTTPS.

So, is this "link fixing", or "disruptive editing"? As far as I know the Wikimedia Foundation believes strongly in protecting the privacy of its readers and editors, which in my opinion not only includes reading Wikipedia on HTTPS, but also external links. HTTPS is not a any-scenario solution for privacy protection, but it at least shields against deep packet inspection by third-party private entities (like Phorm).

What I did was in the best interest of Wikipedia and its readers. But if someone tells me I harm Wikipedia, I will stop. --bender235 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If this involves a very large number of similar, small changes - perhaps it's a botlike task? (and therefore WP:BAG)

One possible criticism of the edits is that a lot of people have their watchlist diluted with edits that they have no interest in - doing it with a bot solves that criticism. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with bobrayner here. I actually think this is a good change but if people have criticised your non admin actions, the normal course of action would be to discuss it and reach a consensus. If you can't reach a consensus with only the existing editors, then there are many methods of WP:Dispute resolution, which our header mentions, none of which is ANI.

The fact that people have said they may bring you here is neither here or nor there. It's resonable for people to say they will bring you to ANI if you continue with disputed mass edits even when asked to stop. As in that case administrative action i.e. blocking, may be necessary. That doesn't mean ANI is the place for you to resolve what is ultimately a content dispute.

I would note I see a fair amount of discussion on your userpage, which is good, but it's not clear to me if you proposed and discussed this somewhere centralised which would be the ideal thing, particularly when your changes are disputed. (As for where, perhaps WT:EL or WP:VPP.)

As plenty of people have said, an alternative since you're doing something which is best suited for a bot, is to file a bot request. Which provide that centralised place for discussion about the proposal with the systems behind it to try and ensure a suitable robust discussion; provide an obvious focal point if people see the edits taking place and want to check out the discussion; and also make it easier to filter out your edits.

Edit: I see now there is discussion at WP:VPM. That's a good thing. But it makes me even more confused why you opened this discussion. I WP:AGF you are not WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Both has been done, see WP:VP/M and WP:BTR. Plus, I don't see it as a content dispute since no content is changed. --bender235 (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See my edit above. In any case, you can call it what you want, the fact of the matter it's not something which requires administrative intervention unless you force that by continuing to edit without consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but what is the consensus? Is the Foundation's decision enough to assume we do protect reader's privacy, or not? How many people have to agree on those edits before eliminating the risk of a single users veto-and-I'll-ask-you-to-be-banned? --bender235 (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not one user, Ive seen at least half a dozen users tell you to stop/that its a bad idea. Your BOTREQ was denied for good reason, and you never filed a BRFA, which are two separate issues. Werieth (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is, if there is any consensus, it's clear when multiple people have asked you to stop, there is no consensus for you to proceed. So either you have to establish that consensus to proceed or you give up on your proposed edits. You've been here long enough that I assume you're aware people don't have to establish there is consensus against your edits for you to be required to stop and in the absence of any consensus for or against your edits, you should not continue. If you believe your actions are mandated by the foundation directive, you are welcome to ask the foundation that. I'm fairly sure they will not tell you to make these changes without first coming to consensus. Offtopic but having read a bit more about this (primarily the number of edits that will be required), combined with your attitude here, I'm personally also against your edits now so you can add another. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My attitude? What have I done? I explained my good faith, and politely ask whether I was disrupting Wikipedia. So what's wrong with my attitude? --bender235 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1) You're getting in to pointless semantics about whether or not something is a 'content dispute'. 2) You've implied only one person has asked you to stop when multiple people have. You've engaged with these people to some extent which is good, but rather then either continuing that discussion or seeking extra participation using one of the many means our WP:Dispute resolution suggests, you've come here and opened this this thread (after as I understand it continuing with your disputed edits) which as far as I can tell, clearly doesn't belong at ANI. (You've been here long enough that I assume you know the purpose of ANI.) 3) There was clearly no consensus for your changes and so you needed to stop and continue discussion. Rather than accept this when it was pointed out to you here by multiple people, you've instead made weird claims about foundation directives and the definition of consensus.

I'm not saying these are terrible problems which require a block. I am saying these and other factors strongly suggest to me it would be a bad idea for you to be involved in these edits, as I'm not sure you will deal with handle complaints well enough. (And considering the scale of edits you propose, it's easy to imagine a lot of complaints.) Having said that, while your original edits might be accepted as harmless, continuing with them when it was clear they were widely disputed is likely to be seen as disruptive.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for where this discussion is heading. I was acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. I was assuming the move to HTTPS already had consensus, because why would the Wikimedia Foundation issue such a strong statement if otherwise. I was wrong, and I am sorry for it. I don't know why this got personal so quick, but I guess I'm the one to blame for this, too.

I am unclear what to do now. I started a discussion at WP:VP/M, but it turned into a proxy war on the usefulness of HTTPS in general. I've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years, and I begin to feel tired of the decision process. It seems to me there is no point at which one can claim "consensus" has been established on something. --bender235 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• An "s" at the end of "http" is, indeed, part of the content of an article (or in this case, many articles). The moment a single person asks you to stop, it means you do not have consensus to add it anywhere else, and therefore must start a centralized discussion to make the request ES&L 11:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The moment a single person asks you to stop, it means you do not have consensus

No, actually there is a difference between consensus (a majority agreeing) and unanimity (all people agreeing). I don't know if there is still a consensus for the HTTPS move. I thought the Wikimedia Foundation's word was clear enough. Maybe I was wrong? --bender235 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure ESL knows what consensus is, being an experienced admin. The point is once someone complains, you have to automatically question whether you have consensus and consider stuff like WP:BRD which may mean refraining from editing even if you think there is clear cut consensus. To be fair, if you're just enforcing the clear cut results of a 100 participant WP:RM closed by 3 neutral admins a few days ago when there's clearly no evidence consensus has changed, it's perhaps resonable for you to simply reply to them and continue without waiting for this objector to comment or withdraw their objection. (

But when multiple people have objected to your actions and you've opened a thread which had evidence of consensus for your change (and definitely wasn't closed in favour of your change by a neutral party), you clearly do not have consensus. Even if only one editor in good standing has objected, if you have no guideline or policy, let alone discussion to point to where there's clear community consensus on your specific actions, there's no resonable way you can claim consensus for your edits, no matter what your personal interpretation of a foundation comments or general direction (I said above directive but this was a mistake on my part). Remembering of course as I've said before, the lack of consensus against your edits doesn't mean you can continue or there is consensus for them. (And common sense suggests when making mass edits, you should take even more care and be even more sure that there is consensus.)

I would remind you a foundation comment or direction is mostly irrelevant in determing community consensus. The foundation could overide the community at any time, and people will generally take their comments and direction on board but community consensus is determined by what's said here among the en.wikipedia community (including any foundations members who choose to be part of this community).

Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. So consensus on the use of HTTPS in general has yet to be established. Good to know. --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation made a statement to "push for the use of HTTPS by default for the Wikimedia projects" ... that does not mean outgoing links, only on the project. There no way to read anything else from that Foundation statement ES&L 17:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be a point. Should we discuss this on a broader scale at WP:VPP or WP:ELN? --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Why can't this be a bot task? If it were a bot task the watchlists would still be updated to reflect the changed pages. This is true for all parts of Wikipedia, from user talk pages to article space. Hell, half my watchlist is currently "EdwardsBot" delivering messages of the signpost and "‎Legobot" archiving posts and "Yobot" for article fixes and such. If there was a way to not update all the watchlists, would this be done? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is to be done at all, it probably should be a bot task. However many people are objecting to it eing done in any way, by anyone. There are a good many people for whom https is not usable, and others for whom the significant extra data that it passes back and forth is an issue. DES ^(talk) 16:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not all "external sites" have https: enabled. There would have to be a "list" of known-and-approved-https-enabled sites, and yes, a bot could be tasked to scan all recent changes for additions that included those sites, and appended the "s" accordingly. Of course, it would have to do a big, sweeping run first to catch the existing ones. However, there would have to be a VPP discussion to determine consensus on a policy to actually add external links to known sites with https enabled ES&L 17:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong, but I hope you are not referring to the section of external links as references in the article are also subject to this and a fair amount of the time the link is not even acknowledged to be one for archive.org on the grounds that it is just a snapshot of another website. If you did this on an https site but directed to an http one that could be a concern for some people. The whole "https" vs "http" thing is a bit all bluster, but I see little point in holding back the edits on grounds it'll disturb people's carefully culled watchlist that expands into the thousands. I believe that you should check your articles once a month at least, many people are not on every 24 hours and the rolling of the watchlist pages are a pretty flimsy argument. It is equivalent to stating, "don't edit this article - I'm watching for vandals and your edit may make me miss one". The watchlist argument is one big red herring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since ESL asked for it, I opened a new thread at WP:VP/P. --bender235 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 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.

An apparent legal threat by User:Frutodetusafanes

see [110]

• Frutodetusafanes (talk · contribs)

also pinging YourACoughDrop (talk · contribs) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like a badly Google Translated attempt to allege there's a BLP problem with a BLP article. Having glanced at the article, it seems there is indeed a problem with it. (See also the essay WP:DOLT.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with Demiurge on this one ... poor translation saying something's wrong with the article. No threat to sue or take action ES&L 12:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest / Paid Advocacy

I am concerned about the major set of COI edits from PrincessKannapolis.

• PrincessKannapolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The contributions history of this editor needs to be checked. She has already announced that she is the representative of one Kelly Baugher (this diff), and has gone to great lengths to promote this person and surround her with articles on other non notable people in order to create smoke and mirrors notability. Despite multiple talk page warnings she does not communicate. It is likely that she created a sockpuppet to evade a ban (now at SPI). What we are seeing is a deluge of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT articles, pretty much all of which are at AfD. With WP's sensitivity about paid advicacy at present, this editor seems to me to be an example of how to use WP for promotion.

Wiser eyes than mine need, please, to take a look at the editing and the articles created and/or edited by this editor. It is clear that paid advocacy is not prohibited by our rules, but it is equally clear that it is deprecated, and that the editor has made no attempt at discussing behaviour despite having many opportunities to do so. I would supply diffs, but the contributions history speaks for itself. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "articles on other non notable people in order to create smoke and mirrors notability." Is this a WP:WALL-type situation? Because such a thing should have no influence on determining notability. -Thibbs (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah OK judging from the incoming links (Identical (film), Justin Murdock, Tracy Murdock, etc.) I guess that's probably what you meant. Good call on AfDing them too, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

She was warned before by multiple adminstrators, blocked for 3rr, the subjects she's created articles for doesn't even want to be in Wikipedia (look at the OTRS ticket on Justin Murdock), and now [111]. She's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. She's on a permanent vacation now. Secret ^account 15:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Methinks the core problem is that PrincessKannapolis believes WP:NOTEWORTHY passing mention is good enough to satisfy WP:N requirement for in-depth-coverage-in-multiple-sources. Also, prolly they ought to be going through AfC, rather than directly editing mainspace, which is slower but less confrontational. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if the people she's creating articles for are requesting deletion, something's clearly up. No need to keep her around. Secret ^account 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to keep a good-faith editor around? Huh. There is something up, of course: wikiPolitics about paid editing, which have nothing whatsoever to do with User:PrincessKannapolis, definitely have something to do with hindering the capacity to Assume Good Faith, and therefore an editor that suffered from WP:NOCLUE has been given the gentle introduction to how wikiCulture works. I will attempt to talk them off the ledge, in the interests of WP:RETENTION, and explain to them niceties such as the function of the capslock key, the bright line rule, and the difference between Noteworthy and the stronger standard of Notability. p.s. I'm assuming you are talking about the editors, who are nominating PrincessK's articles for AfD... did you mean instead the actresses/actors, are contacting wikipedia saying that PrincessK should not be working on articles about them? Or was that a grammar-mishap? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, reading back, it looks like at least one BLP did in fact complain; I'd forgotten what OTRS was. Will search deeper. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor did issue the statement that she was the representative of Kelly Baugher when she tried to have "her" version of the article protected. WP:DUCKTEST, as I have said on my own talk page in reply to her tirade, took my thinking directly to paid advocacy. I don't mind decent edits by anyone, but bad paid advocacy is not to be retained. Nothing stopped even after short blocks and multiple warnings, so I felt I would bring it here for wiser eyes. Even had I been an admin I would have wanted other eyes on this. The edits increased to more and more articles created or edited about a particular group of people, a group that it appears that she represented, probably professionally. The exception is the gentleman Justin Murdock whom she appears to have shown in an awkward light with references that seem to impugn his character.

If she decides that she has learned her lesson and will not edit these topics again, since she appears to be a COI paid advocate in this area I will not be unhappy is she is allowed to return. I have already said in a message to her on my talk page that I will help her. Now we have her attention, something that was very hard to get she may well come into the warm. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The new editor PrincessKannapolis has been warned, temp blocked, and offered counsel. Attention has been also brought to edits of Halsyknox who has involved in an edit war with PrincessKannapolis. And while this report may bring more eyes to those AFDs, those topics might or might not be considered notable by our standards. The essay WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT as a deletion rationale has created a lot of negative perception of topics, which should be judged more on whether or not they actually have notability enough for Wikipedia (containing otherwise addressable issues), and less on WP:ADHOM arguments toward an editor. As this "deluge" centers around only a very few topics, if the editor is problematical, THAT is a separate issue than possible notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Halsyknox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The efforts of Halsyknox, mentioned above are worthy of almost equal attention. I see not only a revert war -- I see deliberate and persistent attempts to remove well sourced BLP content from articles and to blank the relevant pages. . Regardless of the notability of the people involved, this is never acceptable. I assume thee is a coi of some sort, but it doesn't matter because their editing would have been highly improper regardless of motive. What I do not see is any positive contribution to the encyclopedia. At present the ed. is on a short block for 3RR, but if they return to this sort of editing I think a much longer block is warranted. Nobody seems to have issued an appropriate warning, so I have done so. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I blocked her also, it's a clear single purpose account or sock, she needs a vacation also. Too late to do a SPI though as its late. Secret ^account 05:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TheDanaM AfD removal

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:TheDanaM has over the past day been creating articles that appear to be entirely for self promotion. The main one being at Dana M. Haggard. The user has been warned multiple times not to remove AfD templates, and continues to do so anyway. It also appears that she has tried to circumvent the AfD process by creating articles without periods in the name that are clones of the original article, and has recreated at least one of them after the initial CSD per A10 (see Look Over Me (Dana M Haggard song)). I gave her an only warning about spamming for the recreation of the CSDs, and then a final warning for the AfD removals. She has been invited to participate at the AfD discussion multiple times, and has not responded. The history of the primary page can be found here [112]. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note IP address 74.38.50.153 has removed the main page AfD notice twice. I put a final warning on the page, because by both the edit summaries and the conduct it appears to be the same user. See the anon's contributions here [113] TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours as she's probably a clueless new user, but one who was warned a million times. I will likely unblock once she starts talking however. Secret ^account 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy deletion per G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• The article should be SNOW deleted, the IP blocked temporarily, and User:TheDanaM blocked indef pbp 04:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on the snow delete but do not believe an indef block is needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All gone. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:20, 17 November 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.

Legal threat

Okay people, let's all move on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GuidoGY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A Commons dispute over a copyrighted image which was deleted has spilled over onto English Wikipedia. One of the editor's files was deleted on Commons, so the editor made a bad faith attempt to remove all instances of his images as a form of retribution for the one image being deleted. This includes removing the images from the articles on Wikipedia. It has culminated with him leaving a legal threat on my talk page: Special:PermanentLink/581990597#Vindictive actions?. I request that a neutral observer block this user for issuing a legal threat, per WP:NLT, not to mention all sorts of other problems like violations of WP:NPA, WP:OWN, and (especially) WP:POINT. Suffice to say, I would simply try to warn the editor, but he appears to be completely out of control and it would be futile. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Indefm legal threat was clear. Secret account 01:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi245

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

---

After posting a message to the Admin who blocked him twice before I realised that he's offline for a few hours, so am bringing Kobayashi245 (talk · contribs) here as after two blocks for editwarring he seems to be continuing his edit warring behavior - see his recent edits at Stormfront (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the discussion at Talk:Stormfront (website)#Recent stonewalling attempt by ArtifexMayhem & Maunus. He is also continuing to attack other editors after being warned (by me). I don't want to get into the content dispute, just the behavior. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for another week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And his unblock request accuses me, User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Binksternet of stalking/hounding him and says it's all our fault. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

He's going to have to change from a battleground attitude if he wants to keep editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Offline" means asleep. :-) I had already warned Kobayashi that his behavior subsequent to the expiration of the second block was problematic. He responded to that warning as he responds to any criticism: badly. He's now, of course, responding to the latest block badly. I doubt he realizes that FP's one-week block was lenient, given the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I just went though his contributions, such a terrible battleground and mentality its incredible, that was one lenient block indeed, considering that he was just came off a one week block for the same reasons. Do we really want this headache around. I declined his unblock request, and after reviewing his history I made it indef. Secret ^account 14:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Inevitable I think. And advice by others didn't seem to work. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 November 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 warring at Mahabharat (2013 TV series)

An unregistered user with is edit warring despite repeatedly being told in the edit summary of the article not to keep inserting unsourced edits for the cast of Mahabharat (2013 TV series). The following are some of the various IP adresses of the user:

• Special:Contributions/117.196.15.17
• Special:Contributions/117.196.12.152
• Special:Contributions/117.200.232.45

The user keeps inserting an actress Srishty Rode as cast of goddess Radha. However his edits are unsourced. I tried to find out on the internet if Srishty Rode was really portraying the character of Radha in the TV series or if the Hindu goddess Radha was really in this TV series. However I turned up with nothing. It's most likely that this actress is not portraying the character and that the character is not present in the TV series. Either way his edit are unsourced. After repeatedly telling him not to keep inserting cast of characters without reliable sources I inserted a note in the article informing all users that cast members should not be inserted with reliable proof or references. However it looks like that the unregistered user did not understand what I am saying or he is trying to enforce his own view. I and even User:TheRedPenofDoom have both deleted this edit of his however he keeps reinserting again and keeps on inserting the edit again here, here and here. The worst part is he does not even give any reason why he keeps inserting the edit again and again and nor does he try to discuss anyrthing with other editors about this. I don't want to keep deleting his edits and get involved in an edit war. So I request the administrators to help since I doubt he will listen to reason. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered raising the issue on one of the the article talk pages? I looked at your edit history, and I did not find any attempt by you to discuss this with the editor(s), either on their talk pages, or on the relevant two article talk pages.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC) The edits you made to User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom were about "Persondata",[114][115] and asking him/her to keep an eye on the article because someone kept making unsourced edits.[116]--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could this be brought up at WP:ANEW instead? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 5.71.202.72

User:5.71.202.72 has disrupted The Boy who Cried Wolf four times in less than 24 hours. He has been warned by two editors on his talk page but has blanked the warnings and left the message 'it's my choice to change it'. Pinethicket has now given the user a last warning for vandalism to another article. It seems nothing short of an actual block, rather than a threat, will bring the user to his senses. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Routine vandalism is best addressed at WP:AIV. An administrator there will judge whether the vandalism is sufficient to warrant a block. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. I have been editing on the Wikipedia for a few years. I've never had to report a persistent vandalizer before, so I'm not sure if I'm even in the right place to make this report or not. Usually when I encounter vandals I warn them once and they stop. But this particular vandalizer just doesn't listen. It's Ip number 23.241.51.168. Here is his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:23.241.51.168

He's basically filling up Godzilla related pages with complete and utter nonsense. I told him to knock it off on three occasions and other editors have warned him as well, but he won't listen. I'm tired of threatening him to no avail and I'm even more tired of cleaning up his messes. Is there any way he can be blocked so this nonsense doesn't continue ad nauseum?Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I blocked the ip for a day. If it needs to be extended let me know. It's from a residential pool so he could be back under a different address. JodyB _talk 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect he'll be back. But at least for now this will work.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please pass the salt

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

---

Could one of our kindly admins please salt Feku. It is a pejorative term that is repeatedly being created as a redirect to a BLP (Narendra Modi). Thank you. - MrX 17:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - MrX 17:46, 17 November 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.

Cornwall

Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Experienced editors with some knowledge of the history of Cornwall articles, and political agendas there, might like to keep an eye on Cornwall, and on a couple of three (so far) "brand new" editors on that page. Cheers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Make that three 'new' contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Or should that be 'three' 'new' contributors? All the same person, surely, or at least part of a co-ordinated thing. N-HH talk/edits 21:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly sockpuppetry seems quite possible - either way, I've asked for the article to be semi-protected, which might at least encourage the contributor(s) to talk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Now four 'new contributors'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've temporarily semi-protected the page to force discussion on Talk. Looks like socking to me.  —SMALLJIM  21:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick question regarding a category

A debate has be going on in the page of the ancient civilization of Urartu over categories. One such category, "History of Iran" was added which caused a stir. When we say "History of Iran", what do we mean? Is it the history of anything within the territorial boundaries of Iran or is it the history strictly referring to Iranians/Persians? I think an answer to this question will end the ongoing dispute. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Content issue. Talk it out. Ansh666 22:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I don't think it is much of a content issue. The category is not well defined. What belongs in the category "History of Iran"? Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not something that admins can decide, use talk pages to hash that out. How is it not a content issue? Ansh666 22:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Lgcsmasamiya's patrolling

• Lgcsmasamiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Lgcsmasamiya is a new page patroller whose work I have repeatedly found problems with - in the last 48 hours alone, Derivations of the Lorentz transformations was marked as fine despite lacking inline citations for most of the article, Crime Investigation Department (India) despite copy problems, Curtis Australia despite bare URLs...so on, and so forth. In and of itself this is not a problem worth bringing here - people can change. The problem is that after I surfaced these issues to them they continued patrolling new pages without responding - although a look at their user talk contributions shows they were never likely to - and that this comes after two blocks and two AN/I threads, all about the user's competence at patrolling. I'd like to request a longer block, the removal of which is contingent on the user actually responding to the concerns. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, this user cannot claim ignorance of the rules s/he is breaking. A block would be unfortunate, but probably unavoidable on account of their actions. This user's first language is not English, and Qwyrxian tried to explain that reviewing articles would be best left to someone with better command of English. The user replied "Ok, i will try to do my best," but that doesn't seem to have precluded them from continuing to patrol new pages. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A perusal of User talk:Lgcsmasamiya for the past 12 months shows constant complaints about Lgc's page curation. There were two previous blocks, one for 24 hours and then another for one week in July 2013. Each time the hope was that this would get the editor's attention. These attempts failed, so I propose an indef block that could be immediately lifted if Lgcsmasamiya would make a clear promise to stop page patrolling. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. The user is productive otherwise. As soon as they get the point, we should not expect continued problematic editing and the block can be lifted. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see that the absence of a "more footnotes" template on Derivations of the Lorentz transformations is such an egregious violation. Could someone clarify which sentences are in desperate need of inline footnotes? RJFJR (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Lgcsmasamiya doesn't pick these things up is the problem - the issue is that he then marks the articles as reviewed so they can't be picked up by anyone else. There's no way of knowing just how much stuff he's reviewed has slipped through the net, an indef block until he starts talking is the obvious option. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the tag since it is suppose to be used when there is a list of general references. Since the only references are inline, it is not appropriate in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account in a hope he will start communicating. I'll keep an eye. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Is there no way to check what has been reviewed by the user or bring up a list of checks to just double check? I'd be happy to comb through a few dozen, but I don't understand what needs to be done to do so. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[117] for seeing patrol log of user.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to people who are tagging them - I peeked at a few, I'll check some more tomorrow. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds, going back to your original question, since when do we require inline citations except for challenged or negative material? And And since when do we refuse to accept articles with bare url citations? Sure, its not good practice, and inline citations are a good idea, but if an incoming article isn't tagged with these problems, it's not a major error. What really counts at NPP is detecting articles that should be speedy deleted. I

Additionally, why would we want to block someone from contributing because they're doing improper NPP? the most we would normally want to do is block them from NPP. We can;t yet do it formally, but we can certainly tell people to learn more themselves first and stop till they do--I've said it when necessary, and then they stop. I know he hasn't listen to past advice, or paid attention to prior blocks, but going to indefinite, almost the strongest thing we can possibly do, is overkill.

Since I have never had the experience of someone ignoring my advice to stop, I have unblocked, with the reason "not a valid reason for blocking." He hasn't listened to past advice, but I've given it a try, and I will follow it up. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I await your second-to-last sentence being invalidated, then. This user has repeatedly failed to listen when told, and when blocked. We've told him to learn more, dozens of times - look at his talkpage. We've blocked him, twice. He perpetuates the behaviour. Failure to participate in community discussions about a user's behaviour, or to change when repeatedly asked, is most definitely a valid reason to block somebody - it's constantly used. I'm surprised to see you ignorant of that. Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)*This is probably the worst case of page patrolling I have ever come across - and I do my best, time permitting, to review as much of the work of patrollers as I can. It clearly demonstrates that the excellent pgage feed & curation system has not addressed the community's concerns that led ultimately to its development. No one actually knows just how well or how poorly New Page Patrolling performs.

I first warned this user on 13 December 2012 and he has not taken a blind bit of notice to any of the repeated warnings since. I suggest that he be Tbanned from patrolling until he has been to WP:NPRSCHOOL, which would also teach him more about page creation in general. I will try to find time to review some of his 600+ created stubs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, because I unblocked under the assumption that reference format such was the only problem, and to enforce something that is actually optional with a block is totally uncalled for. I'm analyzing the last batch patrols. I do see larger problems than citation style, and that would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You unblocked without having read the logs, or evidently reviewing the user's talkpage, or the other ANI threads, or...? Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• A block to force someone to communicate is reasonable when nothing else works, so I have no problem with the block. However, if DGG is going to keep an eye on the user and try to guide them through this, I don't think a reblock is needed, and I think this section can be closed, to give DGG time to work through it. Too many cooks spoil the broth. If it was a mistaken unblock, I'm sure DGG will put it right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So I will. If I have made a mistake, I will certainly admit it and correct it DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, I did state explicitly, both here and on his talk page, that the block had nothing to do with the tags and was more to do with his patrolling in general and lack of communication. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Few editors (or so it seems, except perhaps for both Ironholds and DGG) appear to be as continually concerned about the state of NPP as I am, but then perhaps I don't see everything. I nevertheless make plenty of noise about it. I understand Ironholds' request for a block, if not for all the reasons, but perhaps a short preventative one for say, 24 - 31 hours, might have jarred the user into the response he made which was declined by Floq Fluff. Whatever happens, I strongly suggest that Lgcsmasamiya be placed under a formal Tban by this board from patrolling. I am sure that DGG will take care of the rest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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:Lgcsmasamiya is banned from WP:NPP until they have proven to experience editors (Kudpung and DGG, for instance, that they are capable of reviewing articles in ways that confirm to our guidelines in regards to such things as referencing and copy-paste problems, and make a firm commitment to be responsive to issues raised by other editors and be willing to make changes accordingly. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• support DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely and unquestionably. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - MrX 13:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Topic ban from WP:NPP per User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support KrakatoaKatie 02:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Three days since the poll above was reached unanimously (mainly by admins). User is still patrolling. Can this now be closed and enacted? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 18 November 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.

Big mess at Colon cleansing

What seems to have happened is this:

• New Dubvit2012 (talk · contribs), wanting to introduce material into Wikipedia, was taken under the wing of IDangerMouse (talk · contribs) on IRC.
• In time, two new articles appeared, called Colonic hydrotherapy and Laser teeth whitening. Both are poorly-sourced and fringe/promotional in nature. The first has links to the dublinvitalitycenter.com domain, the second to laserteethwhiteningdublin.com - corresponding to the new editor's user name and indicating a COI.
• Noticing this and after Talk page discussion I propose merging the new content into existing articles Colon cleansing and Tooth bleaching, with a view to reconciling the material.
• After a successful merge of the colon-related material I duly do this, resulting in a big slimming-down of much of the new content.
• Dubvit2012 (talk · contribs) reverts the edits and introduces more material, some of it dubious in nature (medical content sourced to old non-WP:MEDRS popular books; stuff from the Daily Mail; the promotional links again e.g.)
• I raise this on WP:FT/N and WT:MED. IDangerMouse (talk · contribs) posts content there from Dubvit2012 (talk · contribs) which may be a legal threat[118] ("making a case") and argues that the edits are okay as the new editor is "a doctor".[119] IDangerMouse posts to ANI (I believe) outing Dubvit2012 (talk · contribs), but that has since been oversighted.
• IDangerMouse (talk · contribs) posts correspondence to my user page which seems to reveal that Dubvit2012 (talk · contribs) is accusing him of inappropriate interaction.[120] IDangerMouse adds that he takes "full responsibility" for what has happened.[121]

What bothers me about this is not so much the common-or-garden POV-pushing followed by anger & threats, it's the fact that another editor, IDangerMouse, who is meant to be helping, appears to have no clue on what constitutes acceptable content or how to interact with new editors. This is bad for Wikipedia from pretty much every angle. I raise this here because it seems like an incident which includes aspects of pov-pushing, COI, outing, legal threats and general editor conduct - and so could benefit from some kind of admin response. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really say I accept the edits, and the meter was my proposal, the only thing I accept full responsibility is handling this user, and my actions of calling her pretty/super pretty I have time and again told her to make a draft, and proposed the merger, tried to get everyone on the talk page together, where the merger was agreed. Second part I have asked her to explain her actions, gave her the chance to edit the article to keep it fair and seeing what she has posted, I gave my full support to have the article reverted. I have done all I could for this user. She needs to read the guidelines as I've been telling her. There is nothing I can do, i advice her to move on, as I'm doing the same, keeping it fair and neutral. Danger^Mouse (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• It would appear that Alexbrn has logged in under a different name on a different PC so that his IP wont be detected, and made the changes to revert the document back. Its an old trick.

  You should really let the others know what this guy is doing. Its not very cool. Perhaps you could find some other complaints against this person. Its amusing but Im kinda busy and I have a business to run. The accusations of Alex which I told her not the case. 182.178.61.149 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want further conflict or what so ever, I have tried to reason with this user, and she attacks not only me, but other editors calling the merger unethical, and accusing Alex of having 2 accounts, and playing the oldest trick in the book of reverting the article, however the revert was fair, and I have agreed to it, I tried to explain her the policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia, and I have nothing further to do with this helpee, I even apologized to her for calling her Pretty/Superpretty or as she says Sleazy. ^Darkwind^ said move on, and not to further escalate this and put on a RFC or DRN, and I have given a notice on DRN, I cannot reason further with this user, and I have done all I could. She may edit freely, as long as she has reasonable sources, and isn't threatening anyone, otherwise its COI, and would turn into a further escalation of edit war, and more. My final saying is move on! Or get on the talk page, and work together without threats, and with complete civility, which I tried to achieve, and I failed. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at the "big mess at colon cleansing", but I do think someone should award User:Alexbrn the barnstar of creativity for the best section heading at ANI in quite some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• As I mentioned elsewhere (this topic is making the rounds) I read the ANI thread at work and remembered to stop at Publix on my way home and pick up fiber tablets. Sandy, you sound so cheerful that your flora and fauna down there must be in great shape. Types 3 and 4 all around! Yeah! Drmies (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, Wikipedia, for TMI; my worldview is forever changed. Who knows that kind of shit stuff, anyway? And why shouldn't I be happy? I've been engaged in the process of elimination all day. Just check my contribs. I dare not wade into colon cleansing because it is rife with popular press sources. Hello WP:MEDRS !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Phew. Well. It's obvious, even without looking at all the diffs and the IRC logs, that DangerMouse has acted like a complete ass here ("ass" referring to the donkey in its proverbial and not necessarily authentic quality of being a rather unintelligent animal). I guess it's not an NPA to call someone an ass if evidence of assness is so overwhelming. Alex facepalmed himself on his talk page and I think everyone reading this will wonder how in the hell you managed to get yourself up to your esophagus in shit. Whether that behavior is blockable, I can't rightly tell without plowing deeper in the you-know-what and I have no gumption for that right now. Consider yourself trouted, with something that only looks like a trout.

  As for the new editor, well, that was not a good treatment they got, and they have my apologies. At the same time, they were here to get something accomplished, something that doesn't exactly jive with what we're supposed to be doing here. Whether their edits were so terrible that they deserve a block--ah well, for some reason I think we won't see or hear much from them anymore.

  To summarize: thank you Alex for carrying this torch and shedding light on a place where usually the sun don't shine. And by that I also mean IRC. I have never seen evidence that anything good ever came out of that cloaca of instant communications, and I suggest that this present thread is evidence enough for at least one editor to stay out of it. Now, I don't know if DangerMouse hit the other editor up, how they got the email address, and what not--if someone knows, via IRC logs or whatever, perhaps there's more action that should be taken. Maybe, if I sign very quickly, this will get flushed all the sooner and this embarrassing little episode forgotten. Alexbrn, all this pending your input as well. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  Drmies, could I ask you to please avoid resorting to personal attacks? Calling someone an arse is such, and that you have to justify and excuse it here indicates you know this full well. -— Isarra ༆ 18:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  Pretty sure that terminology was a side effect of Drmies cramming in poop-related words to write what might be the most puntastic ANI post ever. Which was perhaps not the most erudite option, but I don't think it was as deliberate as your read says it was. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• More to the point, is this a content dispute, an issue because one user called another pretty, or something else entirely? I ask because if the calling someone pretty has anything to do with it, I would just like to point out how utterly ridiculous that is, and that anyone who finds that to be necessarily inappropriate should be beat over the head with a tuna. Calling a woman pretty is no more inappropriate than calling a man cute, and last I checked there was nothing wrong with that in most contexts, personal correspondence being one of them (and arbitration cases not being one of them, much to my dismay - some of the clerks are so damn cute). -— Isarra ༆ 18:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  Bring on the tuna, then, because if I were trying to get help editing Wikipedia and instead got someone who wanted to tell me how attractive or unattractive I was, I would be intensely creeped out. A person's looks have absolutely no bearing on their Wikipedia editing, and in a situation where a new editor is in the "subordinate" position of asking for help, it's highly inappropriate for a helper to use that as an opportunity to ogle or hit on the new editor. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty clear that at the very least some boundaries were crossed here (far beyond someone being called "pretty" or whatever), and I agree completely with Fluffernutter's comment. Now, whether real rules were broken or not is less interesting to me: I don't think that ANI threads ought to necessarily end with a. a block or b. a complete exoneration--hence my "ass" comment earlier. I also think that DangerMouse realizes that this kind of behavior is to be avoided in the future, and I think that's a good outcome. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes: the complaint seemed to be that IDangerMouse had got the new user's email and was using it to send "sleazy emails" (calling her "superpretty"), although the fact this complaint was raised only after the edits weren't going to plan may be a complicating factor. Anyway, since IDangerMouse has marked their User Page as retired, and since the new editor has gone quiet it may simply be best here to close and move on. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What was the complaint, though? The user who was apparently the target of inappropriate conduct doesn't appear to have said anything, let alone confirmed or denied that it even was inappropriate conduct. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the accusation seems to be based entirely off the word of the the accused, and subsequent speculation that it was necessarily inappropriate is nothing more than speculation without context. I mean, sure, we can all freak out if someone calls a woman pretty because women are so emotionally unstable we can't take that kind of assault, but it might even have made sense in context here.

But by all means do close this as moot, however, as indeed it is, considering both parties seem to have gotten fed up and left already. That could be an argument in and of itself to avoid jumping to such conclusions in the future, however. -— Isarra ༆ 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Isarra, do you wish to go back to "we can all freak out if someone calls a woman pretty because women are so emotionally unstable we can't take that kind of assault" and maybe repunctuate or regrammarize it? Right now I'm reading a sentence that says that women are emotionally unstable, and Miss Piggy is occasionally watching this page. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Process jumping, forum shopping

At Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#Inclusion criteria Codename Lisa (CL) disputes several points about inclusion criteria and including cited content in the list, and then canvassed four people [122][123][124][125] with the non-neutral "I could use a review", right before filing WP:3O. Seeing the 3O request, TransporterMan arrived to ask about the issues before taking the 3O. Doesn't involvement of other editors preempt 3O? Isn't that tactic also forum shopping and interfering with process? Anyways, I replied to the 3O questions. Before 3O completed, CL deleted the 3O request and started an RFC. I think this is process jumping and forum shopping, and we should let 3O respond or decline before proceeding. Am I wrong? --Lexein (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

That's about true. But is it also a wrong thing to do?

• WP:3O only responds to discussions with two participants and we obviously have three, not counting TransporterMan. It is a very lightweight process, a escape hatch, a consensus-making helper, not consensus-building factor.
• Since I am the invoker of 3O, I think it was within my rights to revert my own action before a WP:3O response if I feel WP:SNOW applies.

And seriously, ANI? I normally don't like commenting on contributors, but I think it's necessary now. Since the discussion started, I had a feeling that Lexein is overreacting, not assuming good faith and in general, making things harder than needed. Ever since we started discussion, he did not approve of single thing. At least, please give me some credit: I am trying do something right.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, 3O is not just for "two participants", but for those topics that may not have a wide range of editors watching, and to gain any neutral (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th} opinion ES&L 12:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that, but yes it is. One of Wikipedia's more bizarre creations, if more than two editors are involved in a dispute, 3O is not allowed. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Key here is: should 3O continue anyways, since the canvassed editor (#3) commented only on behavior, and the 3O editor didn't get a chance to reply to the asked questions which were about content and policy before 3O was cancelled? --Lexein (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ANI. You're agitated, invoking and cancelling process and discussion, spinning the situation out of control. I explicitly did approve of both keeping the list from being indiscriminate, and of removal of entries in the list that lacked articles and inline citations of independent reliable sources verifying the facts claimed. I did not approve of deletion of entries with such citations. Next, the third person of "three editors" was FleetCommand, one of the people CL canvassed, just before requesting 3O. And Fleet Command then proceeded to post two radically different comments (almost as if it were two different people), a few minutes apart, "in support of neither": one highly abusive, and the other suggesting chilling out, both explicitly stating that he would not discuss the issues at hand. Should 3O then stop, just because a canvassed person both spewed and suggested calm? I don't think so. --Lexein (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The canvassing is also true. I interpreted it as the right course of action per Wikipedia:Canvassing § Appropriate notification: "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: ... Editors known for expertise in the field". I invited:

• Jasper Deng (known for his ability yo handle discussions in general)
• ViperSnake (known for his good edits in computing area)
• LukeNo94 (known for his general level of information)
• Fleet Command (known for having been a major contributor to software area and software policy in general)

But obviously I never asked Fleet Command to comment on the contributor; I asked for "a fresh opinion or a third course of action" akin to what a WP:3O is about. Other invitees didn't participate. But right now, I am somehow thinking that if Fleet Command and reversal of WP:3O weren't there, Lexein would still have found something else to nitpick at. A quick look at the entire discussion itself suggests that Lexein spends a lot of time conducting warfare (e.g. finding out what I am doing wrong) than addressing the core dispute. (e.g. [126]) His modus operandi seems to be commenting a lot on my person and writing witty comments like "Yes, ANI" seen above.

Can't we just stop everything (right or wrong), pretend they never happened and tend to the core issue?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've answered you. Criticizing me for actually answering you is inappropriate. "Yes, ANI" was a direct answer to your "And seriously, ANI?" above. The assertion of WP:SNOW above was inappropriate unless actual discussion takes place: none took place by others. I've only discussed your actions which seem determined to undermine actual discussion on the Talk page, given that you started the 3O. The actions taken seem to have been driven by the fact that only one of your canvassed editors responded at all, and half utterly inappropriately: in other words, the support you hoped for did not materialize. Where does any notion of WP:SNOW come from? --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• From reading WP:CANVASS it seems Codename Lisa's actions were justified and authorized on a number of grounds. Personally sending messages to four editors with different areas of expertise to weigh in is "Limited posting". The messages are "neutral" and "nonpartisan". For "open"-ness it is acceptable because this wasn't some stealth effort. All in all, an editor is well within there right to remove a request for a 3O when it would be procedurally turned down as the discussion already has three people. Lexein's own comments here show that Codename Lisa's reasons need no further evidence because Lexein has already proven himself to hop on whatever ill-concieved notions of forum shopping and canvassing to wiki-lawyer and make it a battleground. If anything; Lexein's stunt is an attempt to shame Codename Lisa, dodge the actual issue and prepare to selectively discard the opinions of the four editors before they weigh in on the basis that they were "canvassed". ANI was not necessary and Lexein should be reminded that such behavior is not going to win much support. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• • "I could use a review" isn't all that neutral. Just consider if I had canvassed with that subject line - would you still think that statement neutral? Stunt? The fact is, I wish all four editors had answered, but one declined, another was dismissed, the third responded, but only to behavior. So I still don't know what other editors think. You're welcome to assess the discussion points on the Talk page itself. Please answer how canvassing plus requesting 3O is, together, correct or appropriate, since one reduces the chances of the other taking the request. Or how cancelling the 3O, before the 3O editor could respond, after their questions were asked and answered, is appropriate. Or how starting the RFC, without waiting for my reply to the question posed here (scroll down) "In the meantime, if you don't like it, I'll cancel the invitations and call in an RFC.", was appropriate. And your attacks aren't welcome, either. Please write civilly, or better, courteously, and factually. --Lexein (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add some background. I am a very frequent contributor at 3O (and other content dispute resolution venues). When I asked the questions at the article page, I was very careful not to express any opinion so as to avoid becoming a third party to the dispute. The 3O request could have still gone forward (for that matter, even the intervention of Fleet Command in the discussion would not have prevented it, either, since all he commented upon was conduct, not the content issues of the dispute). However, once the RFC was filed I would have removed the request, had Codename Lisa not done it first, as 3O does not handle cases pending in other venues. (All DR venues except RFC — 3O, DRN, and MEDCOM — have that rule.) Moreover, as the requesting party Codename Lisa certainly had the right to withdraw the request and refile it in a different DR venue such as RFC since no opinion had been given. Indeed, even if an opinion had been given, Lisa could have moved on to a different form of DR, since opinions given at 3O are merely advisory and are, expressly under the 3O rules, not tiebreakers. (See the history of 3O not being a tiebreaker here.) I express no opinion about the canvassing issue in regard to the RFC. Finally, having said all of that, I have to wonder if RFC is the proper venue for a dispute involving the question of whether the list as a whole violates NOTDIR. If it does — and I'm not opining that it does — then the article should be deleted. Isn't AFD the proper, or at least the better, venue for that question, so as to get a definitive answer? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Fortunately, Lexein and I have consensus about the last part of your message: None of us think the entire article should be deleted. (Or, I can't speak for Lexein; it was just my impression.) Both of us seem to agree that an item with a corresponding Wikipedia article merits inclusion.

I am not saying these to change the course of this ANI case from what it is to another DR venue; just to show that two editors can easily find areas of agreement, work on it and reach consensus. Why so much hate? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@TransporterMan, you're quite welcome to state your opinion at the original discussion, 3O or not.

@Codename Lisa: Discussion point: Can you make your way over to agree that NOTDIR applies to the list's existence (its intention, which I didn't twig to), but not individual elements similarly to N, which applies to existence but not contents? If so, to avoid future fights, NOTDIR's language could certainly be enhanced to clarify its applicability, and the resulting fact that cited content merits inclusion in lists. This makes more sense to me. That's where the editorial discretion like combo of CSC#1 and CSC#2, as implemented in so many lists which have survived so many AfDs, can take over. --Lexein (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump - not answered since 15 November. --Lexein (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The probable reason no one answered is that there is nothing to do here. Lisa left neutral messages for editors to look at the discussion and changed her mind on the dispute resolution process to use. Neither is something that needs to be taken care of at ANI. This is a content dispute that should be taken care of on the article's talk page. GB fan 22:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider "neutral" for a moment. As I stated previously, twice, Codename Lisa's use of "I could use a review" is not neutral. It is using both personal and positioning language in the title - basic persuasion to bring someone onside as if Codename Lisa was under attack. Looking at the original discussion, though, you'll see I was the one being insulted and called names, by Codename Lisa, and later other editors. Consider if I had canvassed with "I could use" in the title - would you still think that statement neutral? "Comment requested" - that's neutral. If I saw someone using "I could use" to canvas people to a discussion you were being attacked in, I'd again call it non-neutral. Part of my ANI assertion from the start. I don't think there's nothing to do here. --Lexein (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well we disagree if it is neutral request. So far I see one editor that thinks it is not neutral. It doesn't make any difference who said "I could use a review" I feel it is neutral. I can see many non-neutral requests that start off with "I could use . . ." I could use some support in an argument is not neutral. "Comment requested" would be better but "I could use a review" is not bad. What do you think needs to be done here? What admin action do you believe should be taken? Should Lisa be blocked? Should the article be protected? I don't know what you think should be done. GB fan 02:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• It should be obvious that I declined to participate anyway, since this is not an area of expertise for me. Also, I wish someone had pinged me after my name was mentioned here; ah well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94, though I respect your choice, please note that no particular expertise is ever required of editors when discussing. If policy language is challenged, or if its application is being challenged, every editor is free to weigh in pro or con, or not. Yes, there are all sorts of arguments to avoid, but relevant good faith discussion is, and should, always be welcomed. IMHO, every editor may have some potential insight which may help get a discussion out of the "dispute" zone, and into the consensus zone, as TransporterMan did above, about NOTDIR's applicability to whole articles, not content. --Lexein (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is, I didn't have anything relevant to add; and me participating in a discussion where tempers were already flaring is always a recipe for disaster. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolf attacks on humans

While looking into a request on my talk page[127], I noticed that there appears to be a heated battle going on at Talk:Wolf attacks on humans. Could someone please take a look at it?

The underlying dispute appears to be about how 76.250.61.95 (talk · contribs) / 35.8.219.233 (talk · contribs) formats his comments. For example, when Chrisrus (talk · contribs) fixed the formatting[128] as is allowed in WP:TPOC, 76.250.61.95 reverted it.[129]

The problem is that some of the other editors on the talk page have been deleting 76.250.61.95' comments. See these edits by Graham1973 (talk · contribs),[130] [131] Slightsmile (talk · contribs),[132] and by Mariomassone (talk · contribs). [133]

Related: This has been to DRN,[134] and was closed because of a then-ongoing RfC which I am having trouble locating. It has also been discussed at WP:NCHP,[135] , WikiProject Animals,[136] , and at WP:RFC/BOARD.[137]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy Macon, for bringing this up here.

Just to clarify, the deletions have not been discussed at the several places you mention, but rather a broad and somewhat earlier version of the sourcing dispute was discussed (briefly) in those places. I gather that sourcing dispute itself is not up for discussion here?

In any case, I've tried to summarize my current view (a compromise) on sources in my latest talk page comment, which may or may not be deleted, but which is perhaps ideally where it belongs.

Also, just for sake of completeness, will mention that you missed Chrisrus as among editors deleting comments from talk page. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; you obviously mistook this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolf_attacks_on_humans&diff=prev&oldid=581812272 edit for a comment deletion. Scroll down a bit, check and see that not one word was lost. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95 somehow misread my comments. I was quite specific in saying "Chrisrus fixed the formatting, as is allowed in WP:TPOC". In other words, Chrisrus did the right thing, and 76.250.61.95 reverted him, which was wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I deleted 76.250.61.95's comment because he/she started a new section which was merely a response to an issue raised in another. He/she's been doing this repeatedly (as if unable to use the 'edit' feature on each section), and has been told just as many times to stop. As nothing was getting through to him/her, my course of action seemed like the best way to get the message across.Mariomassone (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My own clarification I made the deletion I made for much the same reason as Mariomassone (talk).Graham1973 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are your reasons for making the deletions, but are the deletions allowed? Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. That behavioral guideline page says that you are not to delete or edit other people's comments except in specific situations such as fixing links, attributing unsigned comments, removing prohibited material, etc.

I don't see "As nothing was getting through to him/her, my course of action seemed like the best way to get the message across." on that list of when you are allowed to delete or edit other editor's comments. Do you?

You may at this point be wondering "If 76.250.61.95 will not listen and I am not allowed to get my point across by deleting 76.250.61.95's comments, what can I do? We have a page that tells you what to do at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mario and Graham's explainations seem to speak for themselves (don't think it's kosher). Chris appears to be correct. However, Chris has now taken (in one instance) to breaking up a single post of mine with his own commentary, which offers a misleading impression of how discussion unfolds.

I'd just like all these guys to follow normal talk page protocol. I don't much care exactly how one indents copy, etc.76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Normal talk page protocol. I'd agree to that. So please put your replies under the text you are replying to instead of starting new sections all the time. Chrisrus (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. While deleting the comments was inappropriate, one should not lose sight of the fact that 76.250.61.95's starting new sections annoys the other editors, and that multiple requests to 76.250.61.95 to follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout (section Thread your post) have been ignored. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

At issue, really, is deleting talk page comments in order to advance a particular point of view. And also a similar and more recent problem; inserting stuff into a single post and thus distorting flow of discussion.

Exactly when, or whether, to create a new heading on a particular talk page, is to me, quite trivial & answer is rather arbitrary: It's not a question that even remotely rise to the level of a serious post on the "Administrators' Notice Board."

The deletions, however, I don't thing are acceptable. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take note of my mistake (the misguided motivations of which I've already explained) and will avoid making it again in future. However, I'm disturbed that a similar acknowledgement of error isn't shown by the IP user, considering the fact that he/she was able to use the 'edit' option on this particular page, but has started yet another new, unwarranted section in the WAOH talk page after the above discussions took place. It appears that he/she isn't interested at all in following layout guidelines, which would greatly ease tensions. Mariomassone (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Am pleased that Mario, apparently alone among several editors, recognizes his mistake; I'm disturbed that he equates this with a rather simple question of formatting. Contrary to Mario, these are not comparable questions.

Creating new hedders is a fairly arbitrary judgement based mainly on convenience: Perhaps I've misjudged, & will gladly atone by refraining from creating all new hedders on talk page.

However, to delete comments of another on a talk page, as tactic for advancing one's viewpoint, is not a comparable offense; is rather, a truly egregious abuse -- especially when several editors engage together in this practice. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. They did not know what our policy is, and immediately stopped as soon as they were informed. You, on the other hand, have been warned about following talk page layout standards again and again, and yet I just had to correct the indentation in your comments above. Please don't try to distract us by beating up other editors over a resolved issue and concentrate on your willful and continual refusal to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards. Do we really need to block you from editing Wikipedia just to get your attention when it would be so much easier for everyone involved if you simply followed the talk page guidelines about indenting and sectioning? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write comment criticizing Macon's use of indentation above, and for some reason, it's not showing up on actual. I think it's clever, if unacceptably snarky, as a response to Guy Macon: ":::::!-- Free Clue: the last comment had four colons, so the reply should have five. -1" But honesty, comparing indentations to wholesale deletion of comments suggests a nearly complete absence of perspective. One could reasonably dislike or even profoundly disagree with William Carols Williams' lack of capitalization in his writings. Burning his books would be an entirely different matter. If an editor wishes to emphasize a comment by use of indentations, it doesn't bother me.

But I suppose this question is moot, given lack of significant interest.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reposting of block threats.

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:Volunteer Marek posted this block threat. I removed it, and he re-added it with the threat also in the edit summary. I removed it again, with a link to an 'Arguments to avoid' essay, then it was re-added by User:Toccata quarta. I removed it again, because WP:TPO lists personal attacks as an exception, then it was re-added yet again by Volunteer Marek. It is not a listed exception to 3RR, so I have to keep it there for all to see. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying "if you violate policy in X manner you are likely to be blocked" is not a threat. It may or may not be accurate advice depending on the situation. You should not remove such comments from talk pages. You defiantly should not edit war over them, even if you stop short of 3RR. and even if it were a clear threat "I am an admin, do X again and I will block you without warning." it is not the sort of personal attack which may reasonably be redacted from a talk page by another. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal attack, see WP:WIAPA. And don't say that block threats aren't listed in the part about threats: it says "including, but not limited to" 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. You are fine to remove those kind of comment from your own talk page, but not from article talk pages. Finally please bear in mind WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 19:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

On WP:NPA it says "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:" and the section opening with that includes threats. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The listing of several kinds of threats as personal attacks in WP:WIAPA does not include "threats" of the enforcement of Wikipedia policy. None of the items listed there are in any way comparable. You would be well advised to drop the matter and not remove such comments from article talk pages in future. DES ^(talk) 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked the OP for 24 hours. The topic of this thread represents a continuation of a dispute at Frederic Chopin which was taken to AN3 and very nearly resulted in a block. The OP has also been edit-warring on an unrelated article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 16 November 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.

Massive Sockpuppetry, Harassment, Trolling from previously banned user User:CanadianLinuxUser

Troll-B-Gon applied via boomerang. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify 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. See User_talk:CanadianLinuxUser for a list of sockpuppet accounts I have no idea what this troll is about. His approach seems to be to harrass wp users and editors and claim they are some banned account. He seems to see this Merkey person behind every tree. This guy needs to be blocked. He has numerous sockpuppet accounts and uses them to harass other editors. Seems to be a pattern. What idiot gave this troll rollback privileges anyway? His editing history clearly indicates this account is an SPI on this site for trolling and article maintenance of Linux articles he is involved in. This account is being used by Groklaw it appears and is some sort of paid editing. His editing patterns are those of an SPI and troll. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I saw the list of tags that the IP added to User talk:CanadianLinuxUser and removed them. If the IP thinks there's sockpuppetry, they're welcome to provide diffs here or to start a report at WP:SSP; however, the mass-tagging of CLU's user talk page isn't constructive and looks to border on harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Leave the tags in place until this discussion is closed for your LDS FRIEND. 67.182.221.82 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I have blocked the reporting IP address for a month for harassment and trolling; he's likely a returning blocked user with a grudge. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:56, 16 November 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.

DavidMichaelFabian

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 talk:‎DavidMichaelFabian has been violating the 3 revert rule, the bold-revert-discuss rule, and the rule against adding original unsourced content. He's been repeatedly warned on his talk page, and his only discussion of the matter is this entry that he posted on his talk page: Hello, I'm DavidMichaelFabian. I posted some formulas that come directly from me, are self-evident, and are verifiable (if you simply do the math). DavidMichaelFabian (talk)

Can someone block him? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You're at the wrong page. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and follow the instructions there. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User was automatically reported at WP:RVAN by repeated Huggle reverts for adding unsourced content. Beyond 3 unsourced warnings Huggle assumes and reports vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked both DavidMichaelFabian (talk · contribs) and DVdm (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for breaking 3RR multiple, multiple times. The page history is appalling. GiantSnowman 19:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC) GiantSnowman 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Duoduoduo seems to be equally as implicit in this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see three reverts by Duoduoduo but not exceeding that. Will issue a warning, however. GiantSnowman 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:DVdm requested an unblock more than 18 hours ago, but no-one has even bothered to respond. I guess the admins are too busy congratulating each other for another job well done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:44, 18 November 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.

File:Iifa official logo.jpg

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

---

Can an admin please delete this file under WP:CSD#F5. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:44, 17 November 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.

Dubious request for "fresh consensus" on an already settled matter

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.

---

Okay, seriously? I removed a one-line statement that early 19th century German philosopher Fichte had been considered "the true author of National Socialism" by at least some notable opinion. The statement was a blanket one, not qualified in any way, just attributed to the historian Robert Nisbet, and there was nothing more, no context, no references to anyone else's opinion (my original edit here~). The obvious inference would be something like: there is a weighty and informed scholarly opinion that Fichte was the fountainhead of key aspects of Nazi ideology and of Hitler's conception of what nationhood and national unity are about. That's all the more hard not to infer from those words since Fichte is well known as an influential early theorist of how nationhood operates.

Actually Nisbet seems to be the only one who is getting invoked for this far-reaching and contentious claim, and his value as a source for this had been debunked already in a fairly long discussion on the talk page of the article two years ago. One single, vague statement by a single guy - and quoted at second hand by another writer (Carolyn Burdett) in a book on late 19th century South Africa, neither of the two writers being particularly notable for research into the history of philosophy, and to boot, none of the editors at the Fichte article have even seen what book or lecture by Nisbet it was originally from - isn't near enough for such a sweeping statement. It can't get much more dodgy. I boldly went ahead and removed a line that was both vague, badly sourced and misleading. The deletion was promptly reverted by user FreeKnowledgeCreator, we each did one more R and the contentious line stayed in (three weeks later,after a few more edits by other people that did not affect this issue, I made a new attempt and predictably got a fresh revert).

I pointed out to Creator, on his talk page, that the sourcing of the line in question was highly deficient and the claim, at any rate, nothing more than a fringe claim. I also pointed out that the whole issue had already been discussed and debunked (by other editors) on the Fichte talk page and absolutely nothing new to back it up had been brought into the discussion since then. The gist of his reply, after some condescension, was, well, if a consensus happened some time back, whatever it was about, then it's not valid and the whole matter will have to be talked through anew, even if there's nothing new to bring in, until a consensus has been reached again. Very reliable and very encouraging if one wants to keep up quality in articles that don't have lots of widely accessible sources and a host of active, skilled editors. Any John Blow could pepper an article with dodgy statements and talking points, without any discussion at all, or reinsert stuff that has already been removed by the hard work of past editors, and then say to everybody else "you don't have any consensus that these statements are not okay. We have to talk ourselves to a new consensus over as long a time as I decide, if any of this is to go!" Yeah right.

Knowing how that kind of talk page discussion can stretch out over weeks and months without any real effort to work together, or anything consistent getting said by some people, goalposts getting moved - I used to have a proper WP user account but left it dormant after I'd run into too many people endlessly jinxing the system - exercises of semantic hairs getting split etc, the article talk page didn't seem like the path to go down here. The Fichte discussion page has been almost totally inactive for the past two years while lots of edits have been made to the article itself, so clearly that's not where anybody is taking their suggestions and arguments. And from the way Creator handled the matter, and from a couple of glances at his behaviour on his own talk page and in other discussions, I am not fully prepared to assume good faith on his part or expect him to take a careful and calm approach to sources that might enter into the discussion. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't belong here. The thread should be archived. The IP should be encouraged to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution, and perhaps warned about personal attacks as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The matter is both about content (which Creator refuses to discuss in any way) and a matter of principle. If just about any kind of content and fluffy claims can be tossed into an article as soon as person X claims to have a source for it, no matter how dodgy, and then kept in by X saying "you can't remove any of this until I have been talked into a new consensus", how would it be possible to keep up a high level of quality in an article over time? Or even a reliable level?

Looks like FKC is looking for a case and doesn't quite have one.83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For which edits should the IP be warned for personal attacks? Doc talk 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This one, which I quickly found. There might be more, but I don't have the time to search. buffbills7701 01:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out to the IP some time ago that it would be appropriate to discuss content on the talk page of the relevant article. Please, this dispute doesn't belong here. Let's archive it and move on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Someone seems suspiciously eager to get this discussion out of the public eye. KonveyorBelt 04:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(also non-admin observation) Probably rightfully so. It does seem like a content dispute, not a behavioural dispute, and 83. has admitted to not seeking talkpage discussion or other dispute resolution venues. Ansh666 04:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I got both hats here at the table--admin had and editor hat. With the admin hat on: I'm closing this as a content matter, and I think the IP should thank me for stopping a possible boomerang from taking flight. Now I'm going to put my editor hat on and have a look at the article. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The comment Creator is pointing to didn't happen around the time I removed the erroneous claim and he reverted it back without offering any real input (two reverts each at that point, as I stated above). At that time, there was some discussion on his talk page, though from his side it consisted of little more than tantrums and assertions that nobody could touch the matter without first seeking a new consensus, clearly with him involved. The article talk page had been in deep sleep for quite some time while people had edited away at leisure, so that was clearly not where the matter could be taken to be solved, and most disputes the user engages in seem to become long and fairly acrimonious.

I pointed the first of those out to him and essentially got scoffing in reply. The second might be inferred from his talk page and some other long disputes he's been in, and that's what prompted my calling him somewhat thick after attempting to get the matter set again three weeks later and seeing a fresh revert the next day, without any more productive input. Well, I apoloogise, but only for losing my temper for a moment, it might have been better to ignore that kind of user. (this comment posted the minute before the section was archived) 83.254.151.33 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the "archive" goalpost to accommodate this parting shot, but let that be the end of it. The proper place to discuss, for now, is the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 06:08, 18 November 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:Monsoorto

Hey I don't usually edit wikipedia but I figure this might be worth bringing to the admins attention. A user, Monsoorto has been adding that Colonel Richard A. Monsoor is commandering of various US military units and after doing research I don't think this person ever existed. I've reverted some of his edits but I figure the admins might want to know whats going on.71.170.100.11 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard A Monsoor is a lieutenant Commander in Huntington Beach with no claim to fame whatsoever.. Given the blatant hoax, and also the COI name of the editor, I'd say a block is in order here. KonveyorBelt 04:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are basing that on this Linkedin page [138], I'd take even that with a pinch of salt. Since when do ex-CIA 'clandestine agents' advertise this on personal websites? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that something is suspicious ... and this person's resume doesn't make sense. Whatever the case, the user has no business editing here. Either it's a hoax or it's self-promotional COI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor has willfully inserted incorrect information on several pages, and has made no constructive edits. That makes this a vandalism-only username. Block it already. --Yaush (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Note if you ae basing it off the Linkedin profile, there's actually a highly credible claim for presumed notability namely being a Medal of Honor recepient. However with only 16 awarded post Vietnam only 6 to living individuals, it's trivial to establish the claim is false. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

All gone. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Springs, Colorado moved against convention and without discussion to Colorado Springs

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

---

Hello. An editor (not looking for any sanctions, just technical help) boldly made the above move against the longstanding convention detailed at WP:USPLACE (the so-called comma convention). Not looking to debate that here either. Just looking for someone above my paygrade to undo it, as I don't won't to mess it up, so a proper move discussion can be held. Thanks. Not notifying anyone per the first sentence above, but have left a note on the talk page at the article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In the future, this is not an Incident and per WP:RM you should list this there as a technical request ("If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below.") Since the redirect has been edited, an admin at RM will have to undo it, and you should then continue the discussion on the talk page (which you are doing). Just an FYI for the future, but since it is already here, meh. --64.85.214.190 (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this only comes up once every 17,697 edits or so, I am pretty sure I won't remember. But thanks for the info and I will trot right over there before calling it a night. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 18 November 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.

Please comment on vandalism accusation

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 days ago I made a bold edit to the article Nova Publishers where I removed some information (which I contest is not supported by sources) and added some more regarding its business model. Randykitty reverted this edit, which I'm perfectly fine with, using a summary of "vandalism". I take accusations of vandalism quite seriously, especially when directed at a long time editor, so I left a message on his talk page asking if he could please rectify it. I also immediately opened a new section at the article's talk page as per WP:BRD explaining the edit in detail and presenting my sources for it (it has grown to be quite a long discussion, even spawning new sections). After a few back and forth comments in Randykitty's talk page he accepted that I am not a vandal but refused to take back his accusation of "vandalism". Yesterday I thought best to just leave the discussion at that but his somewhat aggressive response led me to believe that perhaps requesting more input would be best. A comment he left at another editor's talk page where he accuses me and editor Alexbrn of trying to turn the article into a "hatchet job" convinced me that he is seriously failing to WP:AGF.

To be perfectly clear: I'm not here demanding sanctions and/or apologies of any kind. I'm just interested in what other editors/admins make of my original edit because if it indeed constitutes vandalism then that means I've been seriously misinterpreting WP:VANDAL and I should give it another very thorough read. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• The "bold" edit started with the replacement of "Nova Publishers is an academic publisher" with "Nova Publishers is an author mill", followed by the removal of sourced content: " The firm publishes books and journals in science and the social sciences. As of January 2013, it listed 110 currently published journals." (Sourced to the company's catalog, a primary source that can be used for this kind of simple information). There was no previous discussion on the talk page. The article history shows that this article has been the subject of quite a lot of POV editing, both by editors attempting a whitewash and trying to make this publisher seem more important than it is (it's a legitimate publisher, but operating at the bottom segment of the academic publishing market) and by editors trying to turn the article into a hatchet job. I have this article on my watchlist and reverted the edit with edit summary "vandalism". User:Gaba_p is obviously not a vandal and I have said as much in the discussion on my talk page. However, I see no reason to apologize for an edit summary saying "vandalism" when reverting a badly sourced POV edit without any attempt at discussion, because I do not think I committed any fault. If Gaba_p doesn't want edits to be called "vandalism", they should not make edits like this. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is such a pointless thread. Randykitty refuses to apologize for calling a good-faith, but misguided, edit vandalism. Now Gaba_p is looking for revenge / comes up to the school teacher to force an apology out of Randykitty / whatever this is supposed to be. Grow up. Both of you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

At my age, I'm afraid that if I haven't grown up yet, it ain't gonna happen anymore... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Headbomb I specifically stated I am not after any sanctions or apologies whatsoever, just comments by experienced editors. Calling this a "revenge" is uncalled for, especially after I tried to come to good terms with Randykitty for 3 days and even considered leaving it at that (which I would have if it wasn't for his last response and the message left at DGG's talk page also accusing me and another editor of trying to turn the article into a "hatchet job"). You might not think that accusing a long time editor of "vandalism" is a big deal but I do. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever other problems Gaba's edit may have had, it almost certainly wasn't vandalism. WP:VANDNOT.
• That Randykitty goes stealthily canvassing to another editor announcing that editors want to do "a hatchet job" on this article is a bit disappointing. In my case I stumbled into this article (after looking at Gaba's edit history, as it happens) and merely corrected what seemed to be some obvious problems. As it turns out, this article has a fraught past so it seems any edit here is interpreted as being loaded with intent (battleground mentality). Wrong call, Randykitty - though I am sure you are simply trying to do your best to defend the wiki.
• More generally, I don't know if it's just me, but there seems to be an increasingly factionalized approach to editing taking hold on WP lately, where the MO is first to identify the "intent" behind the edits, and then oppose or support that. It's better to WP:AGF and ask questions first; shoot later only if necessary. In controversial article it can be hard though. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute in which both views are wrong. The University of the South Pacific says that it "reprints scholarly public domain material and solicits recently-credentialed scholars to submit book chapters for academic monographs. Not exactly a self-publishing enterprise, but books do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus."[139] and Stanford University libraries has some interesting comment.[140] and a search with words such as 'reputation' suggests that although 'author mill' is probably wrong, it isn't exactly a standard academic publishing house - so I suggest the various parties sort this out amicably. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller I actually dropped the "author mill" edit after discussing it on the talk page because my source is not of the best quality. The issue right now is whether it can be called an "academic" publisher (among a couple of other issues) But my intent here is not to discuss content, rather the lack of proper WP:AGF by Randykitty who still clearly believes he made the right call referring to my edit as "vandalism". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have looked at the talk page first, everything I've said above has been said there. But it was clearly a content dispute and no one should have called that vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Author mill" is as negative as "diploma mill". If someone would change the lead for some small rural college or university to claim that it is a "diploma mill", without any reference to back this up, I think that could validly be seen as vandalism. Same here, I really cannot see this as a good faith edit. As for "canvassing" other editors, I contacted User:DGG, who is our greatest expert on academic publishing. I do this quite often. If someone cares enough to look through the connected histories, you'll see that often enough DGG does not agree with my initial point of view (and he almost always -say 90% of the time- manage to convince me that my initial reaction was wrong; in addition, anyone who knows DGG only slightly knows that he cannot be canvassed, he has his own opinions, regardless of what others say). So I was certainly not soliciting his help, but his opinion, which is invariably given in a gentle and reasonable way and very often succeeds in calming a disagreement. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that Nova is not an academic publisher (although I really don't see the moniker "academic" as anything other than descriptive), but slapping "author mill" on an article on a publisher is another matter, if this would have been a living person instead of a company, that would surely have been seen as a serious BLP violation. Perhaps one can argue about whether "vandalism" was the correct term, but the edit was grossly inappropriate whatever you want to call it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

But that's precisely what I argue Randykitty, as I mentioned quite a few times at your talk page. Let me quote myself from comments I made over there: "You can call my edit a "badly-sourced POV-edit", that's fine", and "You can disagree 10000% with my edit, that's fine". I presented a source for "author mill" (which we later agreed would be best left out) and at no point did I try to force that into the article after you took it out. Why would you not assume good faith? As has been told by not only me but 4 other editors now (one in your talk page and 3 here) my edit was definitely not a "vandalism" edit. I have no problem with you whatsoever (I think you are an amazingly prolific editor) but you made a mistake and it shouldn't be that hard to just accept it and take it back. Otherwise you are failing at WP:CIVIL and WP:AFG and misinterpreting WP:VANDAL. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Calling an edit vandalism just because one disagrees with it (even 10000%) is unwarranted, obviously. If you're happier with "badly-sourced POV-edit", that's fine by me, as I think I already implied on my talk page. To me, "badly-sourced POV-edit" equals vandalism. And as the diff you posted at the start of this discussion shows, there was no source in your original edit. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

But you're still doing it Randykitty, you are still calling my edit "vandalism" and that's the issue here. I'm not "happier" with "badly-sourced POV-edit" since it still fails WP:AGF, but at least it doesn't carry an implicit accusation of WP:VANDAL. You have been told it was not a "vandalism" edit by 4 editors now (not counting me) and yet you still keep at it. There was no source in my original bold edit but I immediately presented it when you reverted me. Calling an edit "vandalism" is an implicit accusation of WP:VANDAL and that's in clear opposition to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and a broad misinterpretation of WP:VANDAL when applied to my original edit. How can you not see this? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:35, 18 November 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.

RevDel abuse by Wifione

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.

---

It has been brought to my attention that Wifione has abused RevDel by using it to hide the history of his or her user talk page - 210 revisions hidden with a claimed reason of RD6 ("Non-contentious housekeeping, RevDel corrections, notes, conversion"). I am bringing this up here rather than simply wading in and resetting the visibility of the affected revisions because I am severely concerned at this misuse of a privileged tool. I would draw the community's attention to the severe warning on Special:RevisionDelete that Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping. (Emphasis in original). — Scott • talk 13:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you attempt to ask Wifione for an explanation before running off to ANI? GiantSnowman 14:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the snotty reply. Abuse of privileged tools is a priority matter that requires immediate and maximum attention. — Scott • talk 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Scott, just because we are talking about a possible abuse of administrative rights doesn't override the requirement that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I'm not saying your concern isn't valid, but it is common courtesy to give someone a chance to explain before escalating matter. -- KTC (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott. Sent you an email on this. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't discuss apparent administrator abuse matters in private email. If you have anything to say to me on the topic, you can do so in public. — Scott • talk 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF - why immediately assume there is abuse of tools? GiantSnowman 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. Deleting conversations after a year and a half on the public record (as RD6, to boot) and then claiming the material is eligible for oversight removal is abuse. RevDel is not a convenient memory hole for administrators to remove chunks of their talk page history if they get embarrassed by it further down the line. — Scott • talk 15:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• 210 seems a bit much. It really depends on the content of said revisions though. Like, what was the reason behind Vejvančický's contribution that needed to be revdel'd (it's the first revdel I see)? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like to me that the reason for RevDel is just the simple task of achieving his talk page.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it cannot possibly look like that. I'll assume good faith on this one and urge more caution before responding on a public board in a thread full of contention. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Moe, Jeff, Scott, I'd informed the oversight team about these revisions a day or so before rev-del'ing them and had sent them a detailed breakup moments after rev-del'ing them as per procedure, giving the issue over to them to decide (of whether to oversight the revisions or to reinstate them). Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 14:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is an oversight issue, I do not understand why it has taken you a year and a half to decide so. — Scott • talk 14:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I'd informed the oversight team of the issues involved and the reasons for the delay. Regards. Wifione ^Message 14:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(Replying to Jeffrd10, EC with all others above). It looks like that at first glance. But actually, it's doesn't go back to the beginning. More likely there was something revealed or mentioned a while back (by Vejvančický), that was not removed until very late so the only way this could be dealt with was by deleting all edits in between. This is an unfortunate but necessary part of the revdelete process. Considering this is a user talk page, and the lack of evidence for anything major being lost, the number of revisions doesn't really seem to be an issue. The main issue is whether whatever it is that was removed was justified. I have no idea, but it does seem to me discussing it with Wifione first was indeed the correct course of action, particularly as there may be privacy issues involved or other things we're missing. As for the latest single revision again by Vejvančický, there is some mention of an email. It may be an agreement was reached here between the two to remove the revision, an agreement between the talk page owner and the person who originally posted the message would seem to be sufficient consensus to remove. Even if it's not the case, it may be it's the same thing posted so we come back to the same issue. Again, discussion first would likely have clarified what's up. If you're not happy with the explaination and it's clear there's nothing that's being missed (e.g. the person has contacted arbcom about it), then bringing it here would be fine, but not before. P.S. Wifione's reply reenforces my view this shouldn't have been broought here without discussion. And there seems to be something going on in external sites, which perhaps explains why this has came to head now. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The elephant in the corner: There is concern that Wifione was formerly the user known as Nichalp and he has been interested in removing all evidence of questions about a possible connection. Why, I don't know. Perhaps he'll explain here.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because of WP:OUTING, and that repeating it again can lead to a block? ES&L 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How on earth does linking one pseudonym with another pseudonym violate Wikipedia's absurd and childish "outing" policy?Dan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Childish? People have lost their REAL LIFE day jobs due to outing. So, how is it absurd and/or childish? ES&L 19:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking further into this, I see that Wifione also inappropriately revision-deleted part of his or her talk page archives at the same time. I am also concerned that he or she appears to have a habit of applying full protection to his or her talk page archives. This is an absolutely inappropriate use of protection; see WP:FPP and WP:PP#User_talk_pages. — Scott • talk 15:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't someone inherently involved when it is their own talk page, to where someone else should do whatever needs the tools? North8000 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the protection issue (although I know this isn't the first time I've seen someone protect their own talk page).

The deleting archives bit isn't surprising. If you look at the history as I said above, it seems clear that the revision by Vejvančický stayed on the page until it was moved to the archives, hence the need to delete so many revisions. It evidentally stayed on the archives until recently when Wifione removed it, when they also had to revdel the older archives.

Again, I'm not commenting on whether this material should have been deleted. But there's nothing surprising about all this, it's simply expected due to the way revdeletion works and the difficulties removing something which was not quickly excised. And it all comes back to this material which Wifione evidentally feels should be suppressed.

You can perhaps criticise Wifione for not quickly excising it, particularly since, as I understand it, the material was noticed at the time so I guess it's simply that they reconsidered the implications of the material. But it isn't unheard of that someone will only appreciate the harm of something later. And in any case, that's surely between Wifione and the oversight team.

If Wifione was doing this all without asking anyone, there may be legitimate concerns. But since they have contacted the oversight team about it, I don't see that there's anything for us to do. If the oversight team rejects the request for suppression, but Wifione still wants it revdeleted without suppression, we can discuss that then.

I don't see that being involved is an issue either. The whole point of revdeleting something while awaiting oversight is to reduce the harm of it still being visible and people are supposed to do it on the quiet. Particularly since it involves Wifione's own talk page and the actual harm for this material being missing for a few days is surely minimal.

So WP:NOTBURO, WP:IAR suggests there's nothing wrong with Wifione being the one doing the revdeletion provided they make a timely request for suppression and either undelete or involve third parties if the suppression request is rejected but they want to keep it revdeleted. (Perhaps it would have been wise for Wifione to seek a third party in the first instance, not because they did anything wrong but to reduce the chance of this kerfuffle, but that's not particularly relevant to ANI.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

After my communication to the oversight team as per the rev-del policy, they've replied a few minutes back saying that the edits do not meet the criteria of suppression. Again, as per what the rev-del policy advices, when the material is not found to be suppressible, the material may be restored or admin-deleted. Of the two choices, I've chosen to restore the material. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Let me just add, then, since I've been watching this thread, that there seems to be considerable disagreement about whether links to the site that shall not be named should be revdeleted because of OUTING (and BLP) concerns, for instance. I thought, from my recollection of an AN thread not too long ago (but long ago to be oversighted by my advancing old age), that revdeleting such links was indeed acceptable. It would be nice if we could get clarity on this or, if such clarity was reached, a link to it. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 18 November 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.

Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake

Sheldrake is a scientist who, for whatever reason, has gone off into some paranormal research. There has been a persistent effort of late to prettify his article to minimize the degree of scientific disdain for his ideas. This is overflowing onto noticeboard after noticeboard: FT/N, BLP, and NPOV. Now we are being subjected to an RFC attempt in the article [141] on the part of User:David in DC where all the previous commenters are being told to abstain. The underlying problem is that Sheldrake's defenders are not making headway in keeping the article from telling what mainstream scientists think of his ideas. My personal participation in this is slight: I do not recall editing this article, and I made some comments in the NPOV discussion. But this has really gone on way too far, and it needs to be shut down with discretionary sanctions. In addition to David in DC's attempt here, a lot of this can also be laid to User:Alfonzo Green, whom I am informed has been blocked or banned before for edit-warring on this article; the BLP discussion was started b y User:Philosophyfellow, who has turned out to be largely a SPA about Sheldrake. There may be others; it's hard to sort out all the mountains of verbiage. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish the editors who think there is not enough material about his views would add a bit more and stop complaining (or present the diffs of all the times their WP:RS material has been deleted.) The ones who have added a tad too many criticisms from lower quality sources should agree to remove them. Then the issue could be finished.

I'm getting pretty tired of establishment academic types trying to censor any academic idea they don't like as "fringe". Having the same problem in the Austrian economics/libertarian areas. Wikipedia:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. If we can have Wikipedia:HOTTIE forward to someone's personal essay "Hotties are always hot" on good looking humans and survive multiple AfDs, we can add a few NPOV descriptions of people's alternative ideas without overwhelming them with criticism by tight ass establishment WP:RS protecting their turf and jobs. Geez... User:Carolmooredc talk 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: the place to discuss changes to WP:VALID are at Talk:NPOV or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). However, until the consensus changes, your wish for minimizing the academic mainstream viewpoint is not policy compliant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - it doesn't matter what your personal views are, or what issues you're having with other articles, we need to follow WP:FRINGE, and try to limit the discussion to this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact Carolmooredc is staying on topic. She is offering a solution that requires compromise and that does not require a sanction.

I have been watching this discussion develop with out involvement or position one way or the other on Sheldrake. I do know David in DC holds a moderate, intelligent position in terms of fringe content. He is aware of such content, wants to include it, but at the same time is fully aware of our BLP policy and the place it must hold in protecting the subjects of articles. He is in my experience willing to include fringe content without damaging another human being. Our job is to first follow policy-BLP and the other policies which govern article construction. "Fringe" designated as a guideline by the community, must be considered secondary to policy. It takes two side to Tango, and separating out one editor because a view of fringe is less extreme than another is hardly fair. An RfC brings in more eyes, more neutral editors, hopefully. If all of the editors now dealing with the Sheldrake article stand down and allow new eyes to take over, how is that a problem? I realize it is not usual to ask for input on a lead but so what. An RfC is a respected step in DR. take it. A discretionary sanction should be the very last place neutral editors go for help.. As long as there are ways of working this out and Carol has indeed suggested an obvious one; there is no need to sanction a good editor.(olive (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC))

• What Carolmooredc is suggesting is that we ignore POLICY such as WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID / Wikipedia:VALID#Good_research.
• while an RfC is a respected step to take to help identify consensus of the community at large, an RfC that is framed as a discussion about "What do you think about WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP?" and not "Should the article contain X or Y?" is a complete waste of time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing in Carol's statement, so have to disagree with you. If the wording of the RfC is a concern I'd suggest rewording. There is with out a doubt a war going on between fringe and BLP on this article. Seems to me adherence to policy is of primary concern and that one of the issues here is an attempt to allow Fringe to carry the weight a policy does. At any rate, there are ways of continuing this with out sanctions. I'd note also that a commonly used strategy when trying to include preferred content is to remove editors who stand in the way. I truly hope this is not what is happening here. (olive (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC))

the proposer was asked to withdraw and rephrase and they said No.

and I don't see how you can read "we can add a few NPOV descriptions of people's alternative ideas without overwhelming them with criticism by tight ass establishment WP:RS protecting their turf and jobs." as being anything other than in conflict with WP:VALID " While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, ... We do not take a stand on these issues ... we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." and WP:PSCI "scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. " which were specifically upheld by the ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision see 1, 1a, 4a-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion so I know that David in DC has made many attempts to collaborate. That he is his sticking to his RfC at this point is information for those dealing with him. Why does he feel he cannot compromise now.? I'm sure with both sides, not just compromising but respecting other editors there are solutions.Sure its frustrating when we can't see a way clear but for intelligent, creative people there are ways of collaborating to create content that does not require removing anyone. RfCs are not binding nor are they supposed to operate on consensus. They are request for outside eyes, for more information. I see no problem with going forward and seeing what happens. And as an aside while David is holding his position, so is the other side, so all have to work this out. Its not a problem with a single editor, its a road block in a collaborative process. Seems to me there are no good shortcuts.

This article itself is not a pseudoscience topic, its a BLP first, a human being's life first, that will then contain content that describes aspects of a life that could be considered fringe to the mainstream and or pseudoscience. The issue is Weight in a BLP. This is a person first that at a dinner party or on the street you might actually like. Treat him that way, and add content as needed to describe his life. Its not the other way around seems to me, making sure the subject's life is seen through the glasses of one aspect, that we have designated as fringe to mainstream. This discussion has gone off topic on this NB so I will remove myself. Thanks for the discussion. (olive (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC))

I'm no longer sure how accurate this claim is by the OP. I just posted this to Sheldrake's talk. Well damn. Just read an article in Psychology Review by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He not only referenced Sheldrake as a biologist, but a well known biologist. Just when I thought this might start to get easier. Research into claims of telepathy, or telepathy like claims in animals, appears to have a square footing with *some* biologists. I'm not sure how to deal with these conflicting sources now. How deeply should we involve ourselves in this issue? Is this a tit for tat between scientists as well as wikipedia editors? EDIT: Sheldrake is held in disdain by a number of scientists, there is no doubt. But not all. I don't feel comfortable with Wikipedia taking sides in this issue, especially when there are easy ways to resolve it. Philosophyfellow (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

the number of scientists in the "not all" category is so vanishingly small that it does not register WP:VALID. Thats why Sheldrake's Morphic fields are FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue with having any RFC is that this has been talked to death already. Yes, the article should mention Bekoff's tentative support (which BTW is published in the popular Psychology Today, not the scholarly Psychology Review) but he's one guy working out at an edge himself. He's not stating the state of the field; he's expressing a personal view that the issue needs further investigation. Bekoff's position appears to be "there's a lot of behavior out there which at present we can't explain with material communication", not, "immaterial communication is the only way to explain this stuff." Anyway, this isn't what I'm seeing going on in the article; instead, there's a lot of distortion of what material is there in order to present a greater acceptance of Sheldrake's ideas than the sources actually testify to. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it will be hard to attract sensible, clueful outside input so long as talkpage/noticeboard discussion is dominated by verbose single-purpose agenda accounts. DavidInDC is a good editor and I have no doubt he's trying to do the right thing here—likewise Mangoe and TRPoD. But there are clearly multiple accounts whose participation on Wikipedia is focused solely on influencing this one article. Under those circumstances, Wikipedia's existing conflict-resolution pathways fail miserably, and we're left with an illustration of rule #19 in action. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To the degree I implied that David in DC was one of the problem editors of the article, I would like to back off that. But the RFC he proposes is not going to help, and I don't see the need to do any such RFC. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than tight-assed establishment, how about we discuss old vs. new paradigm and Paradigm_shift#Examples_of_paradigm_shifts as the context for discussing when a theory may at least be outlined? (I'm only talking about maybe 1/4 of the discussion in a bio, not an equal balance as someone may have misunderstood.) In the list of paradigm shifts are a number of issues whose theorists were ridiculed and would have had a hard time getting properly described in Wikipeida. In the 1950s and 1960s Wikipedia editors would have been rejecting things like theory an asteroid hit wiped out dinosaurs and evidence ulcers often were caused by Helicobacter pylori. Even anecdotal evidence (like the apple falling from the tree, or dogs that know when their masters are on the way home) may eventually inspire research that leads to some theory of merit, if not the one originally proposed. Brand new or under investigation theories may not merit more than a minor mention, if any, in an article on the topic. But a bio about a person as widely discussed, televised, etc as Sheldrake demands an intelligent description of his actual theories. I read him 25 years ago and a couple WP:RS articles; plus I've seen 3 or 4 documentary type tv shows about him since. But the bio did little to remind me of just what his theories were, and I actually used to know. So readers to the subject will be even more clueless after reading it. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - science doesn't normally progress by paradigm shifts, they only occur rarely, and usually from prescientific ideas to scientific ideas. The idea that we go from scientific ideas to post-scientific ideas that are remarkably similar to the original prescientific ideas is not how science works. This is the history of science and the sociology of science. Ideas that claim to be the next big thing and then make no progress for 30 years, aren't the next big thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, there's no paradigm shift until the paradigm actually shifts. Personally I would characterize Sheldrake's views as an old paradigm which got set aside, but that's not the point. I don't have a problem with a reasonable summary of his views. The problem I see is that people keep trying to represent this as something which (a) is more widely accepted than it is, and (b) has better experimental support than it does. Our rules demand that we be "tight-assed" because we do represent the "establishment". You know that, and I wish you wouldn't use these incidents as an opportunity to go on about how we need to weaken our critical faculties and report these theories more credulously. If within the next year we get good and widely accepted confirmation of Sheldrake's ideas, I for one won't object to a recasting of the article (and for that matter an article on the theory itself). But that hasn't happened, and the smart money is on it not happening, and until then, we report the state-of-the-art. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, do reliable sources describe him has offering a paradigm shift? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources report Sheldrake as stating that his ideas are not accepted because the establishment won't see the paradigm shift. That's the second wave of his pseudoscience - his promulgation that the "materialistic scientific dogmas" are preventing science from moving forward and the requirements of materialistic rigor need to be put aside. [142] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is there agreement that the original RfC as proposed by DavidInDC, while intended in good faith, is not appropriate in scope and form and is procedurally rescinded? (without prejudice to a future RfC of a more focused scope and format that will allow for determination of community consensus between specific options). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• There's no agreement from me about the characterizations of the RfC, my intentions or my contributions. However, I ask that someone with the knowhow shut this turkey down. This is only my second RfC. I shut the first one down, but don't remember how. And my closing statement would be intemperate. David in DC (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Question Is there any reason in particular this is at AN/I and not WP:AE? We have discretionary sanctions for a reason... N^oformation ^Talk 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because after reading the DS instructions it wasn't clear to me that I needed to post over there. But we can head that way I suppose. Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a WP:AE motion against Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) currently, but I think the other pro-Sheldrake, anti-WP:FRINGE (and therefore anti Wikipedia) editors, particularly WP:SPAs need to be considered there as well. Maybe one at a time though. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on that, but the format there seems to dictate a one-by-one belaboring of each editor. I think we're done here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying that anti-fringe is "therefore anti-Wikipedia" is unhelpful. There are two conflated issues: Sheldrake, and Sheldrake's beliefs.

It is not possible to cover Sheldrake's beliefs neutrally in a way that Sheldrake will ever like, because his beliefs are the usual Kuhnfest of appeals to mystery, which of course ignores that the supposed "paradigm shifts" have not overturned prior observations, they have merely offered a more complete explanation. You can calculate the trajectory of a football using relativistic mechanics, but the answer is so close to being the same as the answer you get with classical Newtonian mechanics, and requires so much more work, that you wouldn't bother.

The solution is to do what we would do with any other controversial biography: explain why the subject is controversial, using the best sources we can find.

Trying to call Sheldrake a visionary is as un-Wikipedian as trying to call him a fruitcake. His beliefs are essentially religious in nature, we can look to articles on prominent believers in refuted religious doctrines for a model. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Aza Toth

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

---

Hi, I'm currently blocked on commons by an admin named Aza Toth, who is also an admin on English wikipedia. I have asked him on his talkpage here about his motivation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AzaToth&oldid=581767937 , but this is now 3 days ago.

He seems to be connected with a vandal (and lier) from Russia (= User:St1995), see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism&oldid=109754822#91.66.153.214

What should I do? (Please no cryptic abbreviations. I want to show this case also to people outside of wikipedia and to readers who have no regards for other wp-admins) 91.66.153.214 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue that should be addressed at commons through whatever system they have in place to deal with block appeals. Posting here again would be inappropriate. John Reaves 19:47, 18 November 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.

Apology and request for more eyes

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 reporting myself here to the Administrators Noticeboard for this edit, where I modified another user's post, in the interest of civility. I promise that I won't do that again. On the same token, though, I hope that an administrator will please look at the escalating intensity of User:Jytdog's language on that page, to potentially issue a warning to him. Thank you. - Stylecustom (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate Stylecustom's concern (the harsh but not actionable post in question was directed at me and another user), I would opine that there is no need for further action at this time and suggest that this matter be dropped. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

fine by me. I don't think Stylecustom knew what he was doing and believe he knows now. Thank you Core for your graciousness.Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 19 November 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.

In the Interest of Preventing an Edit War

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

 – Judgment: Say Burgess was an English "writer and composer".

After exhaustively researching my options herein, I have concluded that seeking intervention here would be the best course of action. Now for the dispute in question:

• 13 November - Farrtj has rather gratuitously and without rationale (vandalised?) the Anthony Burgess page to remove the references to Burgess's status as a musician. (diff)

I didn't remove the references to Burgess being a musician at all. There was still an entire section in the article dedicated to Burgess' "Life in Music".Farrtj (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• 13 and 19 November - Farrtj repeatedly ignores to discuss the issue with me or any other editors.

I assumed this was essentially trolling. Perhaps English isn't your first language, and if so I apologise, but your phrase "The article in question would so happen to be of the Burgess variety." did not seem to me to be entirely serious. Farrtj (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

English isn't my first language, but I consider myself to be fairly competent in writing and reading. As I understand, what I write is at least coherent. Maybe you can assume good faith? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated that assumption on my behalf. Farrtj (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, and you ignored me (because you didn't like my English?) --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• 19 November - Farttj again removed references to Burgess's musical work.

There were no removal of "references" to Burgess' musical work. The subject is amply covered in the article. I question whether "musician" (which he is not) should be put before writer. Farrtj (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I concede that his work as a musician is mentioned elsewhere, but being that you removed the most promiment statement of his status as a musician, my point still stands. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not completely clear that these seemingly-antisocial edits on the part of Fartjj are in good faith. I've tried numerous times to resolve this issue myself, to no avail. And so I defer to the experienced. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

* Reason 1: Burgess would likely not merit a Wikipedia page on the basis of his musical work alone.

* Reason 2: you put "musician and writer". Burgess was not a musician, he was a composer. Secondly, "writer" should come before "composer" as he is better known for the former. *If* we are going to include composer, which isn't a given. Farrtj (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

He was a musician. He was also a composer. Do you understand that composer is a subset of musician? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

He was not known for performing music. It is more informative to use "composer" instead of "musician", therefore. Farrtj (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that this user's account was only created earlier in the month, I did assume he was a troll. I also note that he has already been admonished regarding WP:Civility. His response towards accusations of a lack of civility earlier in the month went as follows: " There must be some misunderstanding, you see, the link to Joli OS was probably shameless self promotion on the part of some hapless, worthless scum who couldn't otherwise attract users to Joli. The link was completely out of place and nonsensical." [143] Farrtj (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of trollery and ad hominem attacks are too grounds for admonishment under WP:Civility. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you responded this time, instead of undoing my complaint as usual, and I disagree with most of what you said, but this is not a forum for discussing the changes to Burgess's article. This is about your blatant ignoring of my requests to discuss this with you until now, when I decided to involve others. I will be happy to rebut your points, but not here. Instead, I would like you to explain why you reverted my edits without giving a rationale, even when I asked you twice. That sort of behaviour isn't acceptable. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't give any rationale for your edits in your edit summary. Furthermore, you asked me once, then brought the issue here. Farrtj (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I asked you once on your talkpage and once more on an edit summary in the history tab. Believe me, I treated this as a last resort. And by changing the introduction to "English writer and composer", you implicitly admit that the introduction was it complete was it was, so an edit summary on my part was not needed. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Update

Farrtj edited Burgess's article to now say "writer and composer", so the Anthony Burgess issue is effectively resolved, although why he couldn't have done this earlier instead of reverting my edits without discussion or rationale is still an open question, and I encourage users to chime in regarding this. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I intended to do this but haven't had time. For the time being it was easier to undo your edit, because just saying "writer" is more accurate than saying "musician and writer". And as you can see from my talk page, I have otherwise been busy: one article under FA review, and two articles promoted to GA status in the last week. Perhaps next time you will make note of these things and be more patient when I don't immediately get back to you. Farrtj (talk) 01:53, 19 November 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:Kevmin

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

---

Please check here: Special:Contributions/Kevmin This user is removing interwikis to pages with useful content, and reverting attempts to replace them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityCzecher (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:Plants here for explanation of my actions.--Kevmin § 03:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Chzecher, and you are? This is a content discussion inasmuch as the value of the link to Wikispecies is concerned. It's also much more than that (interesting stuff, if you like a bit of gossip), but it is never something that fits on this board. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• When looking at the discussion that Kevmin links, I don't see any substantial opposition (other than yours) to the removal of these links, but I see plenty of support for removing them. This is seemingly just an editor implementing consensus. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that it is perfectly fine for a small group of territorial editors to agree to systematically remove content that has been added by another in good faith and in compliance with WP policy, are you?? RealityCzecher (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend, I don't know if you're a biologist or not, but that conversation is as transparent as a green pool. I think the suggestion is made that the Czecher is a well-known user, perhaps that supposedly tyrannical admin over on the species side. Do you have an opinion on that? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Never mind, they outed themselves. Leaves the question of who Stephen and Gordon are; perhaps they're plants. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Stephen is, I presume, Stho002 (since he identifies himself by his full name on his Wikispecies user page). Gordon is the source being used to support the idea that bryophytes are monophyletic. Guettarda (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Stephen is RealityCzecher/Stho002, no idea about Gordon Guettarda beat me to it, darn. And abusive admin? Drmies? No, it couldn't be... Ansh666 04:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Two wikispecies admins with a content dispute walk into a talk page. Says the one to the other, "I am trying to sort it out, and make several things consistent with each other, but it will take time to do so. Perhaps a week long block will teach you some patience?" And then blocks the other for a week, with email and TPA disabled. As an abusive admin myself, I love how they do business there.

If he thought the block was unjustified, he could have appealed it to a 'crat or a steward. Since he did not do so, or if he did he was unsuccessful, I really don't think this discussion about the block is relevant, do you, or are people here trying to bolster a weak argument with ad hominem issues to muddy the waters? RealityCzecher (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if RealityCzecher has admitted to being Stho002, shouldn't he be blocked for block evasion? [144] Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

IF that strokes your fragile ego, then go ahead! I'm not sure what else it will achieve, though. It would be nice to think that we could resolve this issue without a Mexican standoff, but that would require sensible adults acting responsibly, so I'm not holding my breath! RealityCzecher (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oh leave that "fragile ego" nonsense out of it. You're "resolving" the issue by mass reverting Kevmin's edits, so I had no qualms about using mass rollback to undo your disruptive edits: there is clear consensus for removing the links on the Plants project talk page. If anyone's ego is hurt it's yours. Yeah, you should be blocked, but I'll leave that to the admins who were involved with you--Boing! said Zebedee, Bwilkins. Stemonitis, I am sure, has more propriety than to block a user he's been in a content conflict with. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, yes, but through SPI. And maybe the bureaucrats over at Wikispecies ought to take a look at this. Ansh666 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And I have now done the former. Ansh666 05:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it begins to highlight a problem over whether wikispecies should exist at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well that is what this is really about, isn't it? You want to push out what you perceive to be a rival project RealityCzecher (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. What it is really about: no "community" project can exist with one person (you) holding all the strings. Jimbo tries here sometimes, but it never ever turns out well for him. From what I can pull out of this conversation, Wikispecies has deviated from its intended purpose into the knowledge repository of a professor in New Zealand (also you). Ansh666 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Kevmin is a longtime respected editor who understands the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. This other user is canvassing at WP animals and generally creating unnecessary drama, plus the personal attacks here speak for themselves. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• This situation is bizarre. Stho002 should be deadmined, at the very least. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know where to raise these issues on Meta (re validity of wikiprojects)? I just looked briefly and couldn't see....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

m:Proposals for closing projects I think? Though I don't know if such a proposal would be likely to succeed. --Rschen7754 06:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as the issue of admin misconduct on wikis without an Arbitration Committee: any local procedure to de-admin users there should be followed. If not, one can be invented ad-hoc. With that being said, it is Wikispecies' decision to make and not ours, so don't go over there in droves to vote, as that's just rude.

Stewards will have to remove the admin flag in any case, but they will not do so unless a local desysop procedure is followed, or in an emergency. --Rschen7754 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think going to the WikiSpecies Bureaucrats will accomplish much, the last update to the list was pre -January 2013, and the only 'crat with any current regular activity on WS is user: OhanaUnited, all others are inactive. It really is a one admin show on WS at this point, with no interior way to remove/resolve the problem with Stephen.--Kevmin § 06:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, efforts need to be made to resolve the issue out at wikispecies. If not, you can always start a RFC on meta, but those tend to take months. --Rschen7754 06:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are trying to achieve your agenda here by meddling in WS governance, are you? There is no problem at WS. The only problem in recent months has been User:EncycloPetey pointing out a problem to me, and then obstructing me from being able to fix it! Not to mention his subsequent move to WP to try to drum up support against WS! Your attitude of territoriality is so pointless! Think of it this way: there are at least 2 million named species, of which WS has pages for less than 400,000, and WP even fewer! There is PLENTY of work to be done. Even if WS managed to get up-to-date with all 2 million species, which is highly unlikely, I very much doubt whether it could stay up-to-date, given the rate of new species being named. I just contribute more of my time than anyone else, but it is still just a drop in the ocean. This whole discussion is wasting time. Wikispecies will NEVER be closed, because it has too much information which WP lacks. How about just getting on with adding constructive content, eh? That's what I'm going to do ... RealityCzecher (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's great and all, and you've now been blocked for socking here. --Rschen7754 07:11, 19 November 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.

No Such 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.

---

Severe misuse of rollback. It is a tool for fighting obvious vandalism and the one thing it is not for is reverting edits you don't agree with. He has used it several times.

1. [145]
2. [146]

and many more all on November 5, 2013. Cognoscerapo (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to follow user and rollback their edits without reason. I see no talk page discussion and I see no notification of this ANI being placed on "No such user"'s talk page. This does seem like a violation of Rollback, but it is important to hear both sides before condemning anyone. Was there any discussion prior to it being taken here though? 209.255.230.32 (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Rolling back Voice of America backed text may or may not be wrong, rolling back "Susequently, Serbia ended up with it's tail between it's legs" is understandable. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those incorrect "it's"s are highly disruptive. No sticker on the homework of that user. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Those particular insults to the English language were inserted by Cognoscerapo, whose complaints open this thread. More importantly, the sentence in which they appear was inserted by Cognoscerapo between previous text and a cite to a source supporting that prior text, making it seem appear that the new addition was also supported by that cite.[147] So Wikipedia was asserting that the International Court of Justice found that Serbia had a tail between its legs.

Perhaps the complaining editor, while studying the proper usage of its and its, should also pay attention to sources and their proper use (cf. edit summary at this edit reinstating uncited assertion), and also brush up on our policies for WP:NPOV. Kablammo (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would have appreciated an edit summary for the first one, yes, but rolling back the addition of the tail (and the donkey?) is perfectly justified. To IP 209's comment about following the user, such following can be perfectly justified in the context of discovery--one often wonders, after seeing one problematic edit, what else the editor has been up to. FWIW, I just checked out the plaintiff's history and found two more occasions where a revert of their edits should have been explained (with a "POV" note, most likely), here and here. Rollbackers, will you please take that extra step and explain, if only to prevent misunderstandings. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What Drmies explained is exactly what happened: I spotted an edit of the plaintiff, checked his contriburtions, properly reverted a few with an summary, and having spotted the POV-pushing pattern, didn't bother to AGF on the rest. In the process, I left a longish explanation at Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo#.22Yet_another_step_towards_full_recognition.22. In sum: should the complainer post a near-identical, pov-pushing, reference-falsifying fragment to about a dozen off-topic articles violating WP:NPOV and WP:ARBMAC, I don't think he should be entitled to equal treatment as good-faith users. On the other hand, I offer him a kudos for having a nerve to report it here. However, I trust that common sense (and WP:BOOMERANG) still applies. No such user (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That text about "Serbia ended up with it's tail between it's legs" is not a million miles from what independent sources say on the topic. For instance, this says "chastened". Obviously wording like that won't appear in a court document from a case brought by the Serbian government - which is widely cited because other editors prefer to cherrypick legal caveats from that primary source. Nonetheless, I agree that Cognoscerapo's editing is problematic... bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And the edits have now been removed, with edit summary. Nothing more to do here. Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, No such user. There was one more thing to do: I slapped the ArbCom Balkan template on their talk page and logged it, just because we had server space left. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 19 November 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.

Obvious legal threat

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.

---

[148], self explanitory. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a legal threat, but also remember WP:DOLT if the information really was false. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the change made by the non-legal threat making user was sourced. Either way, I'm not touching it with at 10 foot poll. Thats the point, legal threats are a method of censorship. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked the article a little to reflect what was listed on the website and the existing edits. Certainly there are problems but we should be able to work with them unless the OP makes another threat. I'll also drop a line about this on WP:WPRS to get some eyes on it from experienced editors. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I updated the page and infobox with more references, added more information to the infobox, after seeing Nate's WPRS post. I'll keep an eye on the page in case any other problems arise. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Did better on that page than I did, thanks Homer! Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You're Welcome, glad I could help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued Legal Threats

User:Eyesaware, the user who issued the legal threat, has blanked the KWFM page multiple times and added the following message:

This page is under dispute. Please do not edit. Thank you.

For information, please contact: James Evans jamesdevans<email redacted> or Heurlin Sherlock Law Firm Attention: Kevin Sherlock 1636 N. Swan Road #200 Tucson, Arizona 85712 USA (520) 319-1200

Obviously the user is continuing the legal threats, so a block is now necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Eyesaware has been blocked indef by User:Materialscientist for making legal threats. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:44, 20 November 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.

Users 94.43.191.88 and Daylight15

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.

---

• 94.43.191.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daylight15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at this IP user's talkpage I would have expected him to be blocked, but seeing that he has recently edited Wikipedia is understand he is not. I don't know why he was blocked, but I suggest to block him again, because his edits are detrimental to the project. Also, he seems to be the same user as User:Daylight15, who has been making the same edits precisely. If that is so, then perhaps Daylight15 should be blocked as well. If however these two editors are not the same person, then for the registered user I'd recommend a warning or temporary block till the issue has been resolved. Their edits are undiscussed and unexplained changes to spelling on tens of Wikipedia articles. I have rolled back all their edits from today in this area. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP was given a 3-month checkuserblock in June by User:Elockid. The IP is based in Georgia (country). Last July the IP made a request for unblock, but it was declined by User:Ponyo on grounds of block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So what about a block now? And what about Daylight15: is he the same user; should he be blocked? Debresser (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Daylight15 was blocked and tagged shortly after Ed Johnson pinged me here, and well before you re-opened my close in order to ask whether Daylight15 should be blocked. As you are now asking me for additional information on my talk page, is there a reason why this section cannot now be closed again?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Since a checkuser has now reblocked the IP and blocked User:Daylight15 indefinitely as a sock of User:Imorthodox23 this thread might as well be closed. For more background see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Imorthodox23 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Imorthodox23. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 19 November 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.

My block of User:Koala15

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 would like a review of my actions with respect to User:Koala15. Earlier today I closed the discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Omit tracklist?. I then implemented the consensus as determined in my close by restoring the version which I understood to be favored by that consensus (I have not previously edited or otherwise been involved with the article). Koala15 twice reverted my effort to implement consensus with language denying the existence of the consensus that I had determined. I then blocked Koala15 (ostensibly for three hours, but I immediately explained on his talk page that I would be glad to unblock him when he is willing to recognize the consensus arrived at in the discussion). Koala15 has objected to my blocking him without warning. bd2412 T 21:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have given him a warning that a block was coming on the next revert, myself. How about you unblock, saying you should have warned him first? Now that it's clear a block will follow if there's another revert with no consensus, I'm sure he won't just revert the article again, and that's the goal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am dubious, but I suppose it can't hurt to try. Thanks. bd2412 T 21:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I suppose this discussion can now be closed as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:36, 19 November 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.

Drmargi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Armitage_%28actor%29Talk:Richard Armitage (actor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Richard_Armitage_.28actor.29

Guy Macon's Talk page

If this is too detailed a description of an slapfight, let me know and I will edit it down.

Recently, someone on the talk page of the Richard Armitage (actor) article noted that a recent interview in a magazine came out which contained a quote in which the Armitage said he was 19 at the time of a certain event. This contradicted earlier articles that stated his age was 17. I read the article, considered circumstances and decided it has enough merit. I edited the page to correct the age, including a proper citation. (I could not find the article online, but I cited, author, "article title," publication title, and volume & year.) I also added in parenthesis that this was in contradiction of earlier articles. Drmargi reverted my edit and then on the talk page said, "The article cannot rely on your calculations, which are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please find a reliable source that explicitly states Armitage was 19, or we have to go with what the reliable sources provided say. --Drmargi (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)" I pointed out it was a reliable source and showed her a scan of the article. Again, she insisted the "article was not reliable and the edit not verifiable." I put in a request for a Third Opinion. Another editor came on the talk page and confirmed the article as a reliable source. Drmargi's response dismissed this opinion and included: "KiplingKat wants to be the sole arbiter of which is more reliable and which is accurate, but I find a TV interview and the London Sunday Times more reliable than a minor magazine's quote. KiplingKat needs to entertain the idea that the newer magazine contains the error. Related, WP:SYNTH was applied to her calculation of when he got the card based on when she believed he would have left school, not on the quote in the magazine, which wasn't posted at the time. One person's opinion is not arbitration, and it's just that. An opinion, one with which I disagree. This discussion should continue until there is consensus on one v. the other source, and KK refrain from forcing the edit."

I pointed out that personal attacks did not help her case, but went on discussing the article, pointing out that a Third Opinion had been given.

"I saw it. And it's just that; one editor's opinion, not arbitration, and not binding. The prevailing policy is still WP:CONSENSUS. Your interpretation of the difference between the two is WP:OR, as I noted previously. Again, please AGF; I made nothing like a personal attack, and find your lack of understanding of a number of pertinent policies troubling. --Drmargi (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)"

This went on for a bit until I suggested a compromise that all parties seemed to agree too, but they insisted I wait for "consensus."

A second Third Opinion came in and concurred, so I edited the article to the agreed compromise.

"You were asked by more than one editor to wait and allow discussion, as just reinforced by Span, which was the move you should have made. I get that you feel you WP:OWN this article; that's been clear for some time, but when you are asked to wait a couple days, allow other editors to discuss, and then made an edit, you wait. We had two different options for the final product (omit age v. include both ages) under consideration, and there's no consensus for one versus the other. This is about the best interest of the article, not your personal agenda or timeline. I'm not going to delete it because I know you'll just edit war it, but you need to remember that you are part of a collaborative process here, not a law unto yourself (and none of that is a personal attack, before you try to play that card again.) --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

At that point, I lost my patience. You can read at the bottom of the article. I did not insult anyone personally, but expressed extreme exasperation of the situation.

I had already put in for a Dispute Resolution. On the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Drmargi contribution was: "What on earth? By KiplingKat's own assessment, there was consensus on an edit this morning, she made the edit, and now this? It doesn't pass the laugh test. From what I can tell, KiplingKat want someone to tell me what to do, that is, to agree with what she wants.

We discussed the various options for editing and agreed on a course of action with two possibilities for wording (omit age/add both ages with explanation). At that point, Span and I asked KK to wait a couple days before making any changes to both finalize the language and to allow other editors to weigh in, as well as to allow her cool off -- and I'm sure any reader who cares to peruse the talk page history can see that the frenzied tone and equally frenzied revising and re-revising of her posts all day are indicative of the dire need for a cooling off period. But no, she wanted it done because of some earth shattering Hobbit PR thing that had nothing to do with the article (the best interest of the article being the last thing on her mind). Off she went in search of someone, anyone who would say something, anything she could interpret as permission to go ahead, and by morning she'd made the edit she wanted. WP:OWN strikes again.

So why on earth we're here eludes me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be party to any more of her chaos. She's got the edit she agreed to, and made herself, and now she needs to live with it. --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

She then went on the resolution volunteer's talk page and said, "Thank you for your willingness to take on the requested Dispute Resolution regarding the article on Richard Armitage. Out of respect for your time and the work you have already put in, I wanted to let you know that I do not plan to participate in the DR any further. This is a conduct issue on KiplingKat's part, based largely in her need to WP:OWN the article. Consensus was reached, she herself made the desired edit. The article is accurate, reflective of the content of the sources we have available to use, and verifiable. There is nothing to dispute, much less resolve, and I'm not willing to do anything to encourage any further disruptive editing on KiplingKat's part. All the best to you, --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)"

"Again, thanks for the welcome. There are no content disputes; this is all conduct, and I know where to go. I just don't have any confidence it will do any good. I'd prefer to give KK a wide berth instead. She's most likely run me off the article, just as she has every other editor who has dared to challenge an edit she makes. Best of luck to you! --Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)"

Wow. Just wow. I don't think this deserves anything drastic or anything like that, but I think someone needs to "sit down" with her and explain to her that yes, these are personal attacks that have no place in Wikipedia's editing environment. The fact she seems to think this is perfectly acceptable behavior is what is wrong. KiplingKat (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Before filing here, KiplingKat filed a DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Richard Armitage (actor). As it says in the instructions at the top of the DRN page, we cannot accept disputes that are under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, so I closed the DRN case.

Also, I would have liked being notified that my name was mentioned at ANI rather than stumbling over it by chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not notifying you that I was quoting things on your talk page. I'm new to this process. I notified Drmagi, but did not think of the innocent bystander, as it were. I'm sorry. I filed the DRN case, but was told that a discussion of editor conduct was not allowed. I was content to discuss the article only. But Drmargi declared she would not take part in the DNR discussion, that left the conduct issues which I took here. I apologize for any confusion I caused. KiplingKat (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Kenitra and related pages

Since last night, there have been scores of disruptive edits to Kenitra, Talk:Kenitra and some related pages, from multiple newly-created SPAs and IPs. The vandals are constantly redirecting the page to Casablanca, introducing Casablanca-related text into the article, and pasting the whole of the Casablanca article into the talk page. I have requested page protection, and started a sockpuppet investigation listing more than twenty suspected socks. But the disruption continues, faster than I can deal with it. Perhaps posting here can expedite the urgently-needed page protection. RolandR (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since there are so many accounts involved, all of them SPAs and IPs and presumably socks of one vandal, I have not informed them of this report. RolandR (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Casliber has protected the page which should suffice for now. JodyB _talk 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The socks now appear to have turned their attention to other articles about cities in Morocco, including Fes, Rabat, Category:Casablanca, Rabat (disambiguation) and others. And they are still at it; some action is needed. RolandR (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've semiprotected them all for a few days - I do not often block IPs, so will leave for others to decide on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Yozer1

User:Yozer1 has been adding unsourced content and edit warring at Erzurum and has repeatedly removed talk page comments of other editors who have made good faith attempts at dispute resolution.

They have removed and ignored edit warring warnings by me and another user Yerevanci on their own talk page.

They have repeatedly removed an article talk page section and a section on the talk page of another user (Sandstein) about the issue instead of engaging with other editors constructively. HelenOnline 16:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They also gave me an edit warring warning although I have only made one edit on the article reverting their unsourced edit. HelenOnline 17:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This user has been engaged in a highly disruptive editing.

First, he vandalized the etymology of Erzurum.

I reverted him and he reacted by saying "The sources are easy to provide"

He was then reverted by User:HelenOnline [149], to which he replied "Nonsense. Additions to Wikipedia should not be erased"

HelenOnline wrote about his problematic editing on the talk page of Erzurum [150], which he simply blanked 4 times: [151] [152] [153] [154]

And when I asked admin Sandstein about his behavior, he again blanked it several times: [155] [156] [157] --Երևանցի ^talk 16:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not characterize Yozer1's edits as vandalism. I've warned them about continuing to revert (and the article has been protected anyway), and about removing other editors' expressions of concern. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1 has been blocked by Ymblanter for edit-warring for 24 hours. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

how would you characterize this? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Vandalism often involves the use of the word "poop". You have a content and language dispute, don't make things worse with accusations of vandalism. Acroterion (talk)

• I fully protected the article for 3 days, blocked Yozer1 for 24 hours, and warned Yerevanci for edit warring. Please when the block expires do not continue edit warring, but try to resolve the issues at the talk page. I did not check any possible implications of Arbcom enforcement.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of the unblocking process

User:Here2HelpWiki (and two of his other accounts) has been blocked indefinitely for checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts, linked to a previously blocked sockfarm.[158] An unblock request was denied yesterday by a patrolling administrator [159], and he immediately made another unblock request.[160] As a checkuser blocked editor, he can only be unblocked by ArbCom.[161] He continues to play games on his talk page. Would it be harsh of me to ask that his talk page access be revoked? He can only appeal the block by email direct to ArbCom anyway. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, that's not true. He can still use unblock templates; it's just that they can only be accepted by a checkuser (or an admin acting with the advice of a checkuser). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkuserblocks cannot be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l.[162] Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course checkuser blocks can be reviewed on-wiki; either by a checkuser or by another admin in consultation with a checkuser (as noted by Writ Keeper above). No unblocks are reviewed via unblock-l as it is no longer active and has been replaced by WP:UTRS (which does review checkuser blocks).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, his "explanations" are becoming more and more outlandish and contradictory. It might be kinder to take away the rope. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Blackberry: Read the policy rather than the Arbcom ruling; note that it says Administrators should not undo or alter any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser block" without first consulting a CheckUser. It implies that consulting a checkuser without going to Arbcom is an option; it does not say that all checkuser blocks must go to Arbcom. (It does say later that it can go to Arbcom as a last resort, but not as an only resort.) Also note that the Arbcom ruling you cite says that If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee, implying that a satisfactory resolution can be made without going to Arbcom, via discussion with Checkusers (that may or may not be public).

@Voceditenore: Yeah, you might be right, but the idea that cublocks can only be addressed by Arbcom isn't a great one to be throwing around, IMO. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: @Ponyo: Well, I stand corrected: that isn't how I had interpreted the cu statement but we live and learn. Thanks for the clarification. Meantime, my original suggestion about tpa stands. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, no worries! Policy is certainly complicated enough that we're allowed to screw it up every now and then. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If the explanations appeared plausible, I would consider discussing the block with the blocking admin; but since in this case they don't, and the blocking admin is actually a member of BASC, I have declined the unblock request and told the user to appeal by email to BASC. I don't see any need to revoke talk page access, yet. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry JohnCD, I had already revoked the talk page access prior to seeing this. The talk page is to be used to appeal the current block; as Here2HelpWiki has exhausted the on-wiki options with regard to an appeal and is using the page in an increasingly disruptive fashion, I revoked access and pointed them (again) to the remaining unblock venues available to them.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jezebel's Ponyo: No worries! My final word, "yet", indicated an expectation that revocation of talk page access was probably coming soon, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forced Entertainment

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 approve this AfC submission as it passes notability guidelines. However, it appears to have been salted back in 2007 due to a previous copyvio issue (no longer a problem). Requesting the block be removed so the AfC submission can be approved through to main space. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This has already been brought up here and here. Why not wait for those requests to resolve? ANI really isn't the place for general unprotection requests. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of those requests. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:13, 20 November 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:Ravishyam_Bangalore issuing legal threats and disruption

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

---

(After numerous attempts and WP:AGF with this editor) he is clearly a WP:COI and WP:SPA for articles in the niche of UIDAI, AADHAAR etc. I warned him [163] for disruptive editing. He implied another editor was a sockpuppet and revealed/"outed" his (purported) identity [164]. He had previously attacked me personally [165] accusing me of being a meatpuppet. Finally today he issued legal threats to me on my Talk page [166], [167] also threatening me with divine displeasure, then another personal attack [168], and threats to the Wikipedia project [169], especially donors [170]. I had also warned him about his user page [171] which is nothing but a POV pushing article for UIDAI promotions to take advantage that other editors ordinarily will not edit another user's page.Notabede (talk) 18:19, 20 November 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.

Scathing personal attack in edit summary

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.

---

Right here. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nerf herder meaning "A redneck of the Star Wars Universe. Often also known as a farm-boy; He is skilled in many rustic activities and knowledgeable in the ways of farm work."? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nerf%20herder Or Nerf Herder, as in the pop punk band from Santa Barbara formed in 1994?

Either way hardly appropriate to escalate directly to WP:ANI imo. Ross Hill (talk) 01:15, 21 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:15, 21 November 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.

help me

Iam new to wikipedia.and i want to create an article.yesterday i did the chat .after some time they banned my chat saying that iam in chat for an hour.i just asked the questions about the creation of article.please enable my chat.do the favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maroofpeer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a question for this board. You created an unverified and very apparent promotional autobiography through AFC and then blanked it, so it was deleted. You created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sufisaint, which is malformed and equally unverified and promotional. I don't know what to tell you, except to read our guidelines, perhaps WP:N, and the suggestions in WP:FIRST. And to carefully proofread your submissions for grammar and spelling. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild

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.

---

thewolfchild (talk · contribs) appears to be using his/her sandbox histories as places to store WP:UP#POLEMIC information regarding folks s/he is holding a grudge against. The chronicling followed by blanking is far too consistent to be anything other than a sneaky way around WP:UP#POLEMIC. Users and discussions chronicled:

• BilCat (talk · contribs) [172]
• Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) [173], [174], [175]
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs) [176], [177]

This is not the first time this has been a problem with this editor: This user has previously been blocked for maintaining similar, more obviously polemical lists after this discussion on ANI.

I think that at the bare minimum, these sandbox pages should be deleted or the many polemical edits subject to revision deletion.

There was a proposal to indefinitely block thewolfchild on ANI last month put forth by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk · contribs) and Rklawton (talk · contribs) as thewolfchild was previously "unblocked with the understanding that any such repeat of CIVIL and BATTLE would mean an indef block immediately with no chance of unblock" and appeared once again to be violating those standards. The motion was archived without achieving consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Couple of items of disruptive I noted, it seems the old problems never went away:

Talk:Aircraft carrier [178] (and yes, we all know bill and nick hate this and are completely opposed. thanks anyway) Don't think that was needed or helped really given the previous irritations with this editor. See also [179] removing content where there is clearly no consensus to do so in Talk:Aircraft carrier and then wikilawyering over WP:BRD [180]

[181] Requested not to post at User talk:BilCat [182] when that user had already indicated they were disengaging. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent status of the sandbox before it was blanked [183], it appears he was drafting a complaint to be filed somewhere. I am inclined to let it slide given the relatively conciliatory message he left BilCat after blanking the page. Whether his overall behavior was worthy of an indef block is not something I looked into, but I don't think this user was trying to publicly shame the above editors by using his sandbox in that way. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A "concilliatory" message posted directly after he was specifically asked not to...sometimes you cool things off by not posting. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As the victim of long-term harassment by banned trolls, including in the past week on my talk page, I expect users to stay off my page when requested, as I have done multiple times with this user, including today. I understand that he was upset when I referred to him "The Child", in reference to both his user name and his childish behavior at Talk:Aircraft carrier, but there are forums such as this one that he can use to address that. I am sorry that I allowed the whole situation to escalate the way it did, and I understand that the name calling is inappropriate, and I had previously said that I would not do it again, and I did not. However, TWC changed my comments to remove it, and that is also inappropriatewhich I had reverted. Please note that he has asked others to "Stay off my talk page", even today, apparently for this neutral note.

I am still extremely upset at his baiting of Nick and me at Talk:Aircraft carrier, as WCM reported above, in which his comments had the effect of marginalizing any response Nick or I could have made. This was completely uncalled for on his part, as this was a brand new discussion that he started, and I have yet to receive the apology that I asked for here. That said, I should have walked away from the later discussions when they got contentious again rather than continue to respond to him, which escalated the feud. I let my own stubborness keep me in the conversation after I should have walked away, as I feared him taking a lack of response as permission to continue his edits as he saw fit.

I'd like to propose an interaction ban between myself and TWC, should he be allowed to contiue editing on WP. I have respected his desire that I stay off his talk page, and I fully expect him to stay off of mine, except in the case of notices he is required to leave, not including "warnings", such as this one. I would like TWC to be excluded from editing Aircraft carrier, and participating in discussions at Talk:Aircraft carrier, directly or indirectly. Nick and I have both been long-term editors on that page, but I will refrain from editing there if that is imposed on me by the community. However, Nick is an old carrier pilot, and I think restricting his access to those page would be too punitive.

I'd also highly recommend that TWC seek wiki-mentorship. He has continued to show a lack of respect for the talk and user pages of others, as discussed here and here. Even though he has now promised not to do this again, I find it extremely troubling that he felt he needed to edit others' user pages in the first place. He doesn't seem to respect limits on his interactions with others, while at the same time making demands on us when we "offend" him in any way, including refactoring our comments.[184]

Thanks for your consideration. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For those that haven't followed the links, I had a very similar problem with TWC last month which Bbb23 (talk · contribs) brought to ANI as Ongoing harassment of administrator by editor after I had asked for help. We're seeing more than one repeat problem with TWC. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And which this harassment has continued.[185] - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) He certainly knows that the list violates WP: POLEMIC, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to hide it in the page history. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, TWC's removal of that material predates this ANI thread by 3 hours. Presumably, TWC considered opening a some form of dispute resolution, ANI, or Arbcom thread himself and then reconsidered. That's not a violation of WP:POLEMIC to collect threads for dispute resolution. No evidence of hiding since it happened before this ANI thread.--v/r - TP 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block

• Support indefinite block. In the previous ANI thread last month, I supported an indefinite block of TWC. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. Again, he refactors other editors' talk pages for what he perceives as slurs (calling him a "child"). This discussion on The Bushranger's talk page sums it up nicely. He internalizes everything, he lets it fester, he does pretty much what he pleases to remedy the alleged horrible wrongs done to him, and he keeps track and/or plans his revenge (?) in his sandbox. Why he wasn't blocked in October eludes me, but apparently no administrator (who looked at it) felt there was a consensus for the block (not that one is required by policy).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't using his nickname, it was calling him a child. Would you like to be called a child? I think his reaction was quite understandable. And no, a block is not justified here. Jonathunder (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it when waitresses call me "honey" at coffeeshops, but I don't think I'd mind someone saying I'm younger - even much younger - than I am. :-) But that's not the point. Let's assume it wasn't nice for x to call TWC a child on x's talk page. That doesn't give TWC the right to remove it, to label it a personal attack (which even in real life, let alone Wikipedia, it is not), and to warn the editor not to engage in personal attacks. In any event, that's just one factor among many in support of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Bbb23 - "The Child" was an intentional slur. BilCat even admits to it above.--v/r - TP 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it was intentional. I never said it wasn't. In fact I said it "wasn't nice". The correct thing for TWC would have been to ignore it. Removing it and issuing a warning is ... [you pick the adjective].--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly, support TWC reminds me of someone I know who has a serious addiction: when that friend is off the drug, they're a nice person - would bend over backwards for you, and can contribute to society. One taste of the devil's-tool-of-choice, and they're unmanageable, and I wouldn't let them in the same room as a divorce attorney (as much as I dislike divorce attorney's, I wouldn't wish my stoned friend upon them). Now, I'm not saying twc would bend over backwards for anyone (nor am I saying they're a druggie), but they continue to have zero fricking clue about this project. They continually accuse others of personal attacks where none have ever existed; they continue to pull bullshit moves that annoy and are also against policy, and they simply cannot get along nicely with others; period. Maybe this is an age thing - put an indef block, but insist that WP:OFFER be 1 year out...any appeals within one year will be automagically declined, so just lock their talkpage for a year. This individual has been a timesink on ANI and elsewhere for too long ES&L 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Maintain my support TWC was offered mentoring in the past, and because he was not on the immediate verge of banning, he steadfastly declined. The only reason he would even consider accepting now is because he's 1 admin closure away from his site ban. That's simply playing games, and as much as I admire the attempt and the person making the offer, any acceptance of mentoring is pure bullshit/false ES&L 00:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support with reluctance, with the caveat about being involved in the issue. After looking into the past behavior of this editor it's clear attempts to help them become a productive contributior simply aren't being listened to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As a completely uninvolved editor who has not interacted with almost everyone in this dispute I don't see anything coming close to sanctionable. The only incident that is recent is in response to Bilcat calling TWF as "the child". As far as I'm concerned such a statement is calling him a child and flies afoul of WP:NPA, and as such TWF is within guidelines at WP: TPG to edit the comment to remove the personal attack. What's more, his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack and as such the claims of WP:IDHT by Bushranger regarding the talk page discussion just don't seem to fly. And finally the only diff by Toddst1 which is recent appears to be more of an intended noticeboard filing that TWF dropped. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "his warning to Bilcat is in line with having received a Personal Attack" - except he didn't receive any personal attack, and my IDHT mention had nothing to do with the talk page discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And therein is where I disagree. I am constituting that Bilcat's re-writing of TWF's username as "The Child" as a personal attack against his character. And I'm not seeing any Diff's which correspond to WP:IDHT as such I can't support that assertion. In order for me to support an indef block I would first have to see a recent incident that is sanctionable on it's own merits coupled with a history that is related to what the person is being sanctioned for. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You oppose without knowledge of this editor's history? Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I oppose because you haven't put forth any recent activity that merit's sanctions. I put forth two criteria to support a indef block, the first criteria the recent activity is why we block, the second criteria the history determines how long. Without any recent activity you're just digging up old issues. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're seeing is a bunch of supports so far saying in effect the same thing: "In the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues are viewed in a different light and we're tired of it. The project would be better with out thewolfchild." It's not that the stuff with BilCat, Derekbridges or the sandboxes on its own would merit such a response, rather, for those who have followed the issue, these are all repeats of previous problems. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see five diffs from you, 3 of which are older than the last ANI, one which is a link to the archive of the last ANI, and one which is about the recent personal attack. I am dismissing the 3 older ones because they are old, I see nothing wrong with linking the location of an ANI discussion, and finally it was a personal attack. There goes the original filing. If you're tired of bullshit, I recommend two things. One, stop looking for it. And two, stop throwing it. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you have a total of 160 edits, 75% to talk. While everyone is welcome to comment at ANI, it definitely explains your context. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You know it's usually a sign of a weak argument when they have to resort to commenting on the person and not what they say. I believe such arguments are called Ad Hominem. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Usually, but not always. Also, note that the edit where TWC re-factored BillCat's post occurred on my talk page from which TWC has be specifically requested to stay off here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kyohyi, I wouldn't put too much stock in thewolfchild's seeming offense at being called "the child". If you look back through his lengthy history of arguments you can see that he has a long history of misusing the usernames of those who oppose him. In the last AN/I I pointed out that he had created a pun from User:Nick Thorne's name in a talkpage table calling him a prick (Get it? thorn - prick? Very droll.) Another clear example can be seen here (User:Calton's name was shortened to Cal and kept that way despite Calton's objections) It's an older example, but it's quite typical of thewolfchild's style. As far as recent examples of actionable offenses go, I direct your attention to the discussion at Talk:Amber Heard. Please keep in mind that this is a user who has been unblocked from an indef block on the condition that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." -Thibbs (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

First for Nick, my argument had nothing to do with if he took offense, my argument that it was a personal attack. If he has engaged in personal attacks, then appropriate actions should be taken towards him, my point was that he was attacked, and his response was within policy and guidelines. Now regards to Thibbs's comment, TWF's first comment under the section of Uncle. The last sentence was uncivil and unneeded, coupled with the unblock requirement I will strike my oppose. However I will note that he had a valid argument prior to his use of uncivil rhetoric and I would rather see him take up mentorship to drop that tendency then an indef block. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Along with Bbb23, ESL and several others, I supported an indefinite block of TWC in the previous ANI thread last month. His subsequent behavior is essentially along the same lines as the behavior that justified the block then. So, in the context of all the previous bullshit, these recent issues called out above are viewed in a different light and at this point the project would be better with out thewolfchild. The release of the previous indefinite block came with a civility and WP:BATTLE parole. Since then, TWC has repeated numerous behaviors that have gotten him blocked previously and repeatly gets into petty harassment of other editors which clearly violates WP:BATTLE. It's time for this to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is time for this to stop, and I think that's within your control. Kyohyi has it right. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Bbb23 and ESL. Bedrieger (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support with the appropriate caveat that I have obviously been an involved editor. I note that TWC has also edited my talk page recently, despite being specifically requested to stay off it here. This editor's behaviour has been beyond the pale for far too long. I find myself reluctant to visit articles about one of my main areas of interest because of his contiued POV pushing and inability or unwillingness to understand that other editors not agreeing with him is not non-collegiate behavior and is also not a personal attack. I believe we do the project a disservice if we allow him to continue along his merry way. TWC consumes enormous amounts of talk page time and that, in and of itself, is highly disruptive. I agree with BB2 & ESL, the sanctions need to be of sufficiently long term as to send the message that disrupting the project is not tolerated. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment thewolfchild is quite clearly still engaged in the same old pattern of uncivil battleground behavior. As has been mentioned earlier, this current AN/I thread is the third complaint against thewolfchild for exactly the same thing. I am saddened to see that as few as 2 weeks after the last AN/I he got involved in a major fracas with User:Flyer22 and User:Kww at Talk:Amber Heard. Both of these users (neither of whom was involved in the prior AN/I) in fact commented in that engagement that thewolfchild was acting with exceptional combativeness. Did this cause even momentary self-reflection in thewolfchild? The talk page thread speaks for itself. I'm having difficulties squaring this behavior and the general administrative disinclination toward intervening with the warning from User:Amatulic (the admin who removed thewolfchild's indef block for aggressive editing) that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed." Were these just empty words? I understand that CIVIL is one of Wikipedia's weakest policies when it comes to editors who are capable of positive content creation, and I recognize that determining whether someone is a BATTLEGROUNDer requires rather an in-depth review of the editor's history of interactions with his peers, so I'd recommend that when this proposal fails someone should file an RfC/U. Thewolfchild is a habitual wikiwarrior and is very open about his belief that the indef block he received last year for being overly aggressive was invalid. An actual examination of his conduct at wikipedia at any point since he started editing here is enough to turn one's stomach. -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - All I've seen from Thewolfchild is some blatantly disruptive behaviour. Abusive remarks/comments, downright false warning templates, generic tedentious editing, etc, etc. A previous indef, and a history of these such things, means that keeping them here is a huge net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• And yes, the mentoring acceptance has held no weight with me whatsoever either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I'd completely forgotten this bit of childish hypocrisy on thewolfchild's part until the message system pinged me today. Yes, I've been lurking and reading, but being reminded of the pure and utter hyopcrisy of his current whine prompts me to add my two cents. --Calton | Talk 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Has the offer of a WP:MENTOR been tried yet? I'm not going to comment on the proposal for sanctions, other than to say it is apparent that patience is running out on TWC. A WP:MENTOR may well be the last chance for him. I think its encouraging that User:BilCat who appears to have borne the brunt of the problematic behaviour suggested this as a means of resolving matters and as such would suggest its tried before an indefinite block. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per Bbb23 and ESL. Continued violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF demonstrate that we cannot waste any more time on this individual's actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support less drama, more collegiality, more editing. Rklawton (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is an essay somewhere that explains my position well, but I cannot find it. I don't believe that consistently poking a person until they react is ever a good basis for a indefinite block. We have not taken the moral high road here. BilCat has already admitted to some wrongdoing and I am sure Toddst1 is not completely absolved of fault here. But what we have is an issue of WP:POLEMIC which belongs at WP:MFD. But poking at someone and then saying "See how awful they are" when they react is never, ever, ever, and if I'm not clear, ever a good reason to block someone.--v/r - TP 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:BEAR or my personal favourite Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. :0) Wee Curry Monster talk 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither. The one I'm referring to was in someone's user space. Poking the bear and no angry mastodons are close, but not quite what I'm trying to express. This particular essay was more about people who poke poke poke until they get a bad reaction out of someone, then they run to ANI to complain and say "see, I told ya'all this person was bad." I'm not saying thats exactly what's going on here, but that's exactly the feelings I get with this proposal for an indefinite block.--v/r - TP 19:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Geogre/Comic? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was looking for.--v/r - TP 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the poor guy just seems to be poked into battlegrounding at nearly every single talk page he has entered since he joined... Compare examples of his pre-indef-block style of engagement (e.g. this discussion or this one) to examples of his current-day style of interaction with his peers (e.g. here or here or here, etc. etc.). Do you see any improvement at all? Are there any talk pages where his engagement has been collegial and collaborative? Is this the sort of behavior one would normally expect from an editor whose indef block had been lifted under the condition that "any further violation of our policies/guidelines WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND will likely result in a new indefinite block that cannot be appealed"? It's an outside possibility that in each of these cases thewolfchild has just been pushed and pushed until he had no choice but to engage in nasty, drawn out, disruptive and uncivil sniping sessions. If so he has sure had the worst luck of any editor I've ever run into. The other possibility is that this is pattern behavior and that thewolfchild looks for any excuse to turn peaceable talk pages into battle arenas where he can play the wikiwarrior. We can let him carry on playing his wargames or we can do something about it. Restricting your examination narrowly to the POLEMIC charge is missing the forest for the trees here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but the evidence for this block is focused on the 'tree' of WP:POLEMIC. Haven't you ever read about what motivates me?--v/r - TP 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I lost my previous edit by mishandling an edit conflict, but that's OK because coincidentally, the editors I edit conflicted with handled it: WK handled the Geogre comic part, and Thibbs just handled the other art.

So, Question: Can anyone who opposes an indef block point to one successful collaboration, or one peaceful talkpage thread that TWC has participated in since his previous block was lifted? I think that would help determine whether TWC needs someone to read him the riot act once more, or whether an indef block is the best solution after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that really the right angle to look at it, Floq? Isn't the onus on those who want to block to provide the evidence? I see here some issues of POLEMIC which are easily addressed. Other than that, it looks like the same users poking. Where has TWC behaved poorly w/o the assistance of those who contributed to his last block?--v/r - TP 20:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking where has he violated POLEMIC w/o assistance? Or are you asking for evidence of the ongoing pattern of disruptive battlegrounding I mentioned above? Because I've already provided evidence that he has repeatedly and unapologetically violated the terms of his unblock. It's a matter of interpretation so I invite you to scrutinize his engagement with other editors for yourself. If you only want evidence of POLEMIC violations unrelated to the current complainants then I think you're out of luck. -Thibbs (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:TParis, I think it's the right angle to look at his overall behavior since his unblock, not just the WP:POLEMIC issue (in fact, the "polemic" issue is a little unimportant and silly, imho). I sort of defended TWC last month, as I though he and Toddst1 were mutually poking each other, but as I dig deeper I see that TWC appears to be, fundamentally, an editor here mainly to fight, both before and after his block was lifted. If that's the case, he should be re-indef blocked, no matter what minor issue brought him to ANI this time.

I agree, I suppose, that the "burden of proof" is probably not on him, but I plan to look at his contribs sometime this evening, and if I don't see some evidence of being able to get along with someone, I'm going to indef block him again. If I *do* find isolated instances of non-battleground behavior, I won't block right away myself, but a consensus seems to be developing along those lines any way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam: Having looked through his contributions, I think he does valuable content work, especially regarding naval vessels. He does have difficulty, for whatever reasons, with interactions on talk pages. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could help. Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jona, I see you're not the first one to suggest that idea. Perhaps there's a remedy to be found in that. I'm certainly willing to give it a go, and volunteer for some mentoring. - thewolfchild 01:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to volunteer as TWC's mentor.--v/r - TP 02:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, worth a try, if you're willing. I suggest we give TP some breathing room to mentor TWC; it will either work, or it won't. If things go pear shaped, I'm sure TP will know what to do, and we won't need to be back here with another thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. I'll msg you on your talk. - thewolfchild 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well this sounds like a potentially workable solution and I really hope it will produce positive results. TWC easily has the capacity to be an asset here if he is willing to make a bit of an effort at collegiality. I think a big thanks is owed TParis because I think this may be a heavy lift, and I agree that if this solution is accepted then TParis should be given some breathing room in his oversight. Obviously if we find ourselves back at AN/I for the exact same reasons after the mentorship has ended then this will be strong evidence that TWC's behavior is intractable, but I trust that TWC can and will avoid these behaviors in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Withdraw support for indefinite block. Although I have disagreed with TParis on points he has made in this thread, that, of course, doesn't diminish the respect I have for him. Based on his willingness to mentor TWC and TWC's willingess to be mentored, I no longer support an indefinite block at this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support User causes too much trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Stern warning to BilCat against incivility

• Support stern warning - I'm proposing this in an effort to take responsibility for my own actions. I understand that labeling TWC "The Child" was uncalled for, nor matter the circumstances or context of the comments. While there is no consensus above that this was a Personal Attack, all, including myself, agree that, at the least, it was highly uncivil. If I engage in further uncivil behavior such as this, definable by the community, action should be taken against me, including short- or long-term blocks, as per policy.

Further, I have no intention of further direct interaction with TWC. It is clear that we are completely unable to work cooperatively together, regardless of the root cause. I would like that this be formalized as an interaction ban between me and TWC, terms to be defined by the community, if TWC is allowed to continue editing on WP, either now or in the future. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good on you but I have a feeling that you've sufficiently warned yourself at this point and no further action is needed. Support interaction ban.--v/r - TP 15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I would oppose a formal interaction ban at this stage, any record of such a ban will more than likely brought up, falsely I might add, in the future to imply User:BilCat is a problem editor and he isn't. I still have my topic ban from 2009 regularly flung in my face, despite the fact I behaved completely out of character when going through a bout of depression related to PTSD. I would suggest that User:BilCat and TWC undertake to agree to a voluntary interaction ban at this stage. If either breaks it, then that is the time to consider formalising it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. It.s voluntary on my part already, but it's up to the community if it needs to be formalized now, or upon a later incident. - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would like to thank Bill for his comments taking responsibility for his actions. I just wanted the uncivil use of usernames to stop, and it has, so I see no need for any further action. As for a voluntary interaction ban, I already proposed one for myself with both Bill and Nick Thorne on the Aircraft carrier talk page, several days ago. I don't see why we can't self-manage this among ourselves. - thewolfchild 16:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the mentorship. Your article contributions have always been of good quality, and were never the issue here, beyond matters of consensus to make them. I wish you well. (Hopefully this reply doesn't violate the interaction ban!) - BilCat (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We all do things we afterwards regret sometimes. BilCat is normally a stellar editor and will no doubt return to being one now that this momentary glitch is behind us. --John (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above. This indeed appears to be a momentary glitch. This may be naive, but I can imagine that due to their overlapping interests BilCat and TWC can actually enjoy an amicable working relationship down the road, after tempers cool, and after the mentorship. Wikipedia is at its best when its editors are able to interact like adults instead of giving each other the silent treatment. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 17 November 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.

BLP violation in upcoming DYK

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

---

Can someone who knows how DYK works please remove the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu DYK from the list of upcoming DYKs as a matter of urgency. It is asserting as a fact matters which have never been determined in court, and the persons accused of carrying out the alleged murder have never been convicted - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Please note in particular that the article makes clear that Marithamuthu's body has never been found, and the claim that he was cut up and cooked into a curry (the DYK hook) is nothing more than an allegation, albeit one supposedly made by one of the suspects. Frankly, I'm appalled that a flagrant BLP violation like this should ever have been proposed as a DYK. Do people not even read articles before proposing them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article was nominated by its author. @Bonkers The Clown:: any comments to offer us here? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the BLP violations in the article need addressing, though I've removed the worst of them (I don't have access to all the sources, so can't check it completely). For now though, I'm more concerned about us not posting a BLP violation on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean this Bonkers the clown???? ES&L 00:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one. Though I suspect that we may well conclude after this that one is one too many... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed the unblock. Conditions are laid out here, User_talk:Bonkers_The_Clown/Archive_5#Blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article would directly breach the unblock conditions - but that is rather beside the point. Bonkers has not only grossly violated WP:BLP policy, but gone on to nominate the policy-violating article for inclusion on the front page, in a highly sensationalist manner. It strikes me that this is exactly the same sort of behaviour that led to the previous block. It seems to me that Bonkers simply cannot be trusted to contribute - s/he is evidently more concerned with tabloid sensationalism and controversy than with contributing objective and encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Bonkers has changed his MO in an attempt to prolong his Wiki-career; previously trolling, now breaching BLP. Sigh. If I had more time I'd take this to ANI with a suggestion for an indef. GiantSnowman 14:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is ANI :) :) After observing Bonkers for quite some time at DYK, and interacting with him a few times, my theory is that he is not at all a child at play on Wikipedia (as I've seen others say), but that he does this sort of thing intentionally to highlight the systemic problems at DYK. Why is no one commenting on that aspect? Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu Why was this hook approved? (Quid pro quo reviewing, and absolutely no sense of what is a reliable source or of our BLP policy at DYK.) This happens all the time: on the talk page at DYK still is an example I put up only a few days ago. Why do admins routinely pass hooks like this to the main page? (No accountability at any level of DYK). And why has User:Mindmatrix, who passed this hook, not been notified of this issue so he can improve his reviewing? (Oh gee, lookie there, I went over to see if he had been notified, and found a brilliant example of the problems with quid pro quo reviewing: an editor saying, I passed yours, will you pass mine?) My hunch has always been that Bonkers does this outrageous stuff to call attention to how deficient the DYK process is, and something needs to be done about that, because this is not an isolated incident. Faulty sourcing, faulty medical hooks, and BLP vios have long been occurring at DYK. Yea Bonkers for pointing out how bad that process is and why it should be removed from the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: d'oh! - I'm an idiot. Was looking at the thread at BLPN at the same time and got them mixed up. GiantSnowman 18:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa for failing to notice the BLP issue. I'm usually more thorough that this when I review DYK nominations. Regarding the comment on my talk page requesting that I promote a hook, I haven't accepted. Frankly, I'd prefer that the set of DYK article writers and nominators be entirely distinct from the set of reviewers, but that's not likely to happen, and wouldn't necessarily fix the problem anyway. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yea Bonkers for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Because if your assertion is true that's exactly what it is. Nice to know that violating policy is not just OK it wins praise when it's tilting at someone's favorite windmill. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you got me there. But to the pointy point ... can we not do something about the underlying problem? It was not my intent to praise Bonkers (I had to clean up quite a few of his DYKs), and I'm sorry I did that. But I still think the bigger problem should be addressed, and I think his numerous DYK noms that have been pushed up the line for a very long time now served a purpose, which DYK regulars aren't hearing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries; I might have overreacted a bit myself, trying to reset my sleep cycle can make me cranky. I do agree that there needs to be some poking with sharp sticks in some directions, the catch is that (even if there is recalcitrance) it needs to be done in a way that doesn't drive people away from the discussion, that is the tricky part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP enforcers save the day! Three cheers for them, hip hip hooray. I spent so much time trying to find the names of these suspects, but my efforts are in vain. The Straits Times, the most reliable newspaper in Singapore, explicitly lists the names of the suspects. But Wikipedia can't because of fabulous policy. I apologise for trying to enhance the article and flesh out more details for our ardent readers, when by doing so I upset the living people who have yet to be convicted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the facetious nature of the above remark (and this post [186] at Wikipedia talk:Did you know), and the complete failure of Bonkers to address the issue of the gross violations of WP:BLP policy in the Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu article, I formally propose that Bonkers be indefinitely blocked from editing. Contributors may also find the title of Bonkers' latest article indicative of why we can do without such behaviour: [187]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Jimmy Kimmel "Kids' Table" incident has garnered immense media attention and thus I felt that it was wise to split the content to a separate article per its merits. I contributed little content to the split article. Perhaps you should read more than just the title, my myopic friend. It is aptly titled. I took clue from ¿Por qué no te callas?. Would you stop attacking my integrity, hm? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you're paying very close attention to sumbuddy, or happened to see ¿Por qué no te callas? in "On this day" on the mainpage this week. Anyway, are you suggesting that the phrase We should kill everyone in China is going to spawn t-shirt sales and ringtones (enduring), and become a political/cultural slogan that outlasts the incident?

And while you are defending the BLP, could you please explain using a food blog as a source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because I don't do it now doesn't mean I will never do it. In fact the names have already been removed and the violations have been largely rectified. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So you admit you violated BLP? You're a nuisance who seems to enjoy creating controversial articles. I don't know why we don't simply indef you and save ourselves a whole heap of trouble/effort in trying to "rectify" your many, many mistakes. GiantSnowman 12:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand BLP, but took into consideration how high-profile the Curry Murder case was, as well as the fact that reliable newspapers had explicitly listed the suspects' names. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

It seems to me that there is an additional issue here - the DYK proposal was reviewed [188] by another contributor, User:Mindmatrix, who seems to have entirely missed the BLP implications of asserting allegations as fact - in particular, asserting as fact the very allegation that formed the basis for the hook. I'm reluctant to drag Mindmatrix over the coals for this, as frankly I don't see this lack of attention to detail as unusual regarding DYK's, and I think the error is symptomatic of the whole DYK process, which seems more concerned with competition between contributors, and with filling the main page with random questionable factoids than with actually providing our readers with encyclopaedic information. Having said this, Mindmatrix should probably at least explain how the obvious WP:BLP issues with the hook came to be missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Oops, see my similar post in the section above--- we edit conflicted. The problem is not Mindmatrix-- the problem is the process (which by the way, although I've been saying for years they should notify reviewers when faulty hooks are promoted up the line, and asking they get a template for doing so-- they won't). Also see my post above for the problem with quid pro quo reviewing-- you pass mine, I'll pass yours, and a big problem with the reward culture in things like WP:WIKICUP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I should be held responsible. I missed the issue in my review, which is surprising since it was a blatantly obvious violation. Mindmatrix 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Mindmatrix (and good on you), but yours is not a typical DYKer reaction to these sorts of issues. So, something still needs to be done about the wider problem. Based on your appropriate response here, it doesn't look like you are likely to continue to be a part of that problem, but it has been a problem for at least the six years I've been following, and when pointed out, very few react as you have. There is no accountability at DYK, quid pro quo reviewing needs to stop, and if DYK then can't handle the volume, they need to find a way to slow down the process so that they can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Back-scratching reviews are generally one of the only effective ways to get DYKs reviewed at all. But I think Sandy is right, the over-assumption of good faith is more harmful at DYK than elsewhere where the main page is concerned.--v/r - TP 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK is different from other mainpage highlights in having a take-all-comers atmosphere. There is no requirement as things are currently done that a hook be entertaining or interesting, or that an article be high-quality, interesting, or well-written. DYKs are passed by ticking a set of quite loose boxes - does the hook have a cite? is the article long enough? does the hook use an asterisk? - and generally it would be frowned on for a reviewer to impose a quality requirement on either article or hook. As a result, the process is more along the lines of "tick these boxes; if boxes ticked, DYK automatically passes" (which is probably why it's felt that uninformed reviewers are good enough; if you don't have to do anything but check prose length and check for a [1] next to the hook sentence, you don't need to be all that familiar with DYK or even Wikipedia policy to do the review).

If, on the other hand, there was a requirement, even a vague one, that DYK hooks be, well, something that "hooks" readers, or if DYK allowed reviewers to use their discretion in accepting and rejecting DYKs for article or hook quality, I suspect we'd have both far less trouble with an overwhelming traffic flow into the DYK review queue, and far fewer passed-by-rote DYK that turn out to be problematic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The DYK "rules" are at WP:WIADYK. See No. 4, Within policy; DYKs have to conform to core policies. Those are rarely checked, many quid pro quo reviewers don't even know core policies (including one freshly minted admin who recently put a BLP vio on the DYK mainpage), and in the instances when I have checked them, I've been attacked by various and sundry DYK 'regulars'. I do not know where the notion that DYKs don't have to conform to core policies comes from: it is clearly stated in the rules. DYK instituted quid pro quo reviewing because it could not keep up with the volume there. So, reduce the volume already, by removing the notion that any new or newly expanded article is automatically entitled to a mainpage appearance, and do something to encourage compliance and accountability. Many of Wikipedia's serial copyvio offenders and serial misunderstanders of reliable sources have been fed by this process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disagreeing with that, Sandy. Actually, I think you and I are mostly agreeing as far as raising the DYK bar. My point is that there's a vast gulf between "skates past the line of policy" and "this is a well-done, interesting article that should appear on the main page," and as long as reviewers and creators have the impression that if you can eke out "this meets the most basic level of policy and box ticking" then an article is entitled to a DYK appearance, we can do very little about low-quality articles or hooks getting passed, because reviewers are led to believe they have little choice but to pass every article. That's not to say that, say, copyvio issues, which are covered by the current guidelines, are not also being let slip right now; it's just to say that raising the whole bar and removing the sense of articles being entitled to DYK appearances might improve both policy compliance and article/hook quality. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) In my opinion, one of the major problems with DYK is that some reviewers don't seem to bother inspecting the supplied sources or assessing their quality. Many reviews appear to be one-sentence approvals that give no indication the reviewer has done a careful inspection of the material. Despite always carefully checking the sources (and sometimes searching for other sources), I've still missed the occasional obvious flaw, with this case being an unfortunate example. Even attentive reviewers make mistakes, which is why DYK should implement a more rigorous review process. Aside: I don't object to the quid pro quo requirement, but I do object to the circular quid pro quo reviews that it seems to have engendered for some DYK article authors and nominators. Mindmatrix 18:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The QPQ requirement is corrupt. The problems with backscratching are magnified by the unlimited entitlement of article creators to dyks. Although there are some high quality dyks from prolific editors, there are other prolific authors that care more about their quantum output than the qualitative aspect. We've tried many-a-time to lay down the requirement in a checklist form, but there's no specificity when it comes to adherence to policies. What's more, the process seems to have slipped back to the one-sentence review that allows specific problem areas to go unmentioned, but just saying "hook is too long" or "not enough bytes" or "good to go". We ought to consider placing a limit on the number of dyks allowed per editor (per month?), and those dyks that are reviewed need to be done stringently and with a much lower tolerance for AGF. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia's comments. And yes, the QPQ was a desperate measure to drum up the number of reviewers that succeeded only in producing worthless reviews—now used to self-justify the system. Time to get rid of it. In fact, two years ago was the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 November 2013

Contrary to some of the opinions expressed above, this is not an example of the DYK process failing but of the process working. There are four steps involved in moving a nomination to the main page, the first is approval on the nominations page, the second is promotion to Prep, the third promotion to the Queue, and the fourth, promotion to the main page itself. In this case, the problem was identified at the second step. Failure of the DYK process only occurs when a defective article or hook actually makes it to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

By "actually mak[ing] it to the mainpage", you mean, like this BLP impugning a scientist based on primary sources did?

And perhaps you meant to say this is an example of the BLP noticeboard working, since that is what brought GrumpyAndy in? Or did you mean to refer to the number of times that User:Nikkimaria and User:BlueMoonset have had to remove copyvios and other violations that have made it to the mainpage (or through the review process)? Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality, but from my own recent reviews I can see getting the submitter to go through four hooks before finding an acceptable one, a blatantly invalid submission, a concern about a hook, problems with accessing a source, suggesting a better hook and pondering if the article should be at AfD. The trouble with DYK is the same as everywhere, if you provide incentives and rewards for things, people will flock to try and meet them - see all the problems with poor quality AfC reviews we had recently. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what noticeboard the problem was posted on, the point is that someone looked through DYK's prep area and detected it. If a fraction of DYK's critics spent ten minutes a day just checking the next update, threads of this type might be a thing of the past. With regard to your BLP issue, you can categorize that as a DYK failure if you want, but I think the issues you raised in that discussion were complex and not necessarily transparent to the average contributor. Nikkimaria does a fantastic job of identifying copyvios in the queue, but that's part of the queue's function, it's where the final two steps in quality control take place. Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, as I'm not an admin, by definition any removals I do are before hook sets are moved from Prep areas to Queues, and more usually I'll not promote an approved hook because there are issues in it, sending the nomination back for more work. If the original review goes awry, the promotion of a hook to Prep is a backup check point, and the admin-required move from Prep to Queue another one. The backup checks are why reviewers should not approve hooks they suggest, and not promote to Prep hooks they've approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The "admin-required move from Prep to Queue" is decidedly not "a backup check point"; anything is promoted to the main page at that point, with no accountability. And relying on one user (Nikkimaria) to detect copyvio is nuts. There are four simple things DYK can do to slow down the process, stop promoting a sloppy, reward-culture environment, and help resolve these issues:

1. Stop accepting WIKICUP nominations at DYK (easily rejected by bot-- the same bot that already flags them at FAC).
2. Hold the admin who passes violations to the mainpage accountable-- as in, make them stop doing that job. You've got a situation where any admin can push the button, and they're pushing it when clearly cursory reviews are made by reviewers unfamiliar with core Wikipedia policies. And the admins who are doing that, and have been for years, don't care.
3. Remove all nominations that take more than a month to get through the process.
4. Eliminate quid pro quo reviews. if you can't keep up with the volume after steps 1 to 3, do something else, but asking the blind to lead the blind with quid pro quo reviews isn't working.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There are over 100 linked articles on the mainpage right now. Evidence suggests unbolded links are almost as popular with readers as bolded ones - sometimes more so. Who, I wonder, has checked all 100 articles on the main page today for, say, BLP, MEDRS or COPYVIO issues? And if the answer is "nobody" or "I don't know", why is it always the DYK section alone that is singled out for criticism? Gatoclass (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bait and switch. Reward culture. Who is promoting the reward culture by putting those unbolded links on the mainpage (no one except DYK). Example-- the aforementioned Porque no te callas ... "On this day" has grabbed the bloomin' thing three times now, over six years, simply because it is in good shape (not because I submitted it or want the coverage or need the "reward"). Methinks quality is a more reasonable criterion than reward culture. SOMEONE is reviewing the article and choosing it-- there is no entitlement assumption. And they aren't furthering massive and serial violations of same over many years by rewarding that (as DYK has, in the case of spawning many of our serial copyvio offenders, and continuing a forum where core policies and guidelines like BLP and reliable sources aren't even understood). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume from that response that your answer to my question falls into the "I don't know" category. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Right (you know what they say about assuming). We have this discussion about DYK issues routinely. Here is, for the record, the last time we discussed a DYK murder that did get on the main page and was removed per the AN report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think what people who believe DYK should be given a boot to the head and fixed should do is reasonably work to fix the process. While I'm sure she intends well, and while I'm sure there's a few regular bad apples there who would rather stick their heads in the sand than make reasonable changes, the pattern of what happens is always the same: an occasional bad article (and yes, occasional, because of all the hooks that get passed the vast majority are just fine) makes waves, a small group of editors - with Sandy as the most visible - immedately runs up the red flag of "abolish DYK" "WikiCup" "Reward Culture" etc., the DYK people look at this and, quite understandably, circle the wagons, and as a result nothing gets done. If your response to somebody shooting off a cherry bomb is to launch an entire time on target artillery barrage in response, you have nobody to blame but yourself when nobody wants to listen to you at the treaty talks. On another note, Fluffernutter's suggestion to require hooks be "intersting" is something that has come up before and will come up again and gets shot down in flames every time for the simple reason that it is subjective; about 95% of the hooks that I know other people go "WOW!" over get a "meh, BORED" from me. Every hook is interesting to somebody. And to WP:TLDR here, this is something that needs to be discussed at Talk:DYK not ANI, can somebody please close all this so that a discussion can take place in the proper venue? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger Ummmm ... I have nothing to do with the testosterone-fest that took hold below, ala "eliminate DYK" entirely, blanking, blocking and other fests.

    I laid out what I believe to be an entirely reasonable four-point plan for addressing the issues above, which not surprisingly, has been totally ignored. I also disagree with your characterization; please reference my pleas at the DYK talk page. Seeing the craziness that has taken hold in the last 12 hours (this appears to be ANI's latest dramafest), I backed out of the discussion and have nothing to do with the proposals to eliminate DYK.

    I also disagree that ANI is not the place for discussion, because we have a curious lack of leadership/accountability at DYKs whereby any admin can promote hooks to the mainpage, while any "normal" editor cannot remove or fix hooks. It is an admin issue. I would add to my four-point plan above that DYK needs to come up with some sort of system by which they determine which admins are qualified to pass hooks to the mainpage, and hopefully those admins will be familiar enough with BLP, MEDRS etc to know which articles need a closer look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Bushranger, while I understand what you mean about "interesting" being subjective, the DYK guidelines actually already contain language regarding how hooks should be interesting: "When you write the hook, please make it 'hooky', that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. An interesting hook is more likely to draw in a variety of readers." The trouble is that that advice is largely ignored in favor of the more concrete guidelines (5x expansion, ref tag attached to hook fact, etc) because there is no provision in the guidelines for rejecting a hook because it or its article are of insufficient draw or quality.

    At any rate, however, you're right that ANI isn't the place to be having policy-making discussions about DYK; I was just throwing my thoughts into the conversation here because, well, there was a conversation here about something I had thoughts about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer and autopatrolled removed

Given the"Niggers in the White House" incident mentioned above, the BLP violations in the article he created and nominated for DYK, and the cavalier response to the concerns, I've removed his reviewer and autopatrolled rights. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously sensible, thank you for doing this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Request indefinite block of User:Bonkers The Clown

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

---

I think this business with Bonkers has gone on long enough. The new "We should kill everyone in China" thing is the last straw in my mind. This is also a violation of Bonkers' condition for an unblock in August (making race-related edits/articles). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have renamed that article to Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy (for want of a better title). I pondered sending it to AfD per WP:NOTNEWS but there's too many sources to pick through to make a quick and correct decision on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - editor can not be trusted. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, this was an international incident. Bonkers is an odd cat for sure but I think he's here for the good of the project. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to clean up the Jimmy Kimmel stuff to make it not violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (this edit in particular was blatant pot-stirring) and I'm now thinking "why should I have had to do all that?" Sorry, Bonkers, but having gone out of my way to almost spoon feed you how to get unblocked from last time, and given you seem to have an unhealthy interest in putting murder articles through DYK (eg: here and here), I'm coming to the conclusion your presence on the encyclopedia is starting to become a net negative. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Torches and pitchforks support No need allow continued disruption that requires extensive cleanup by neutral editors. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support His disruptive behavior, whether intentional or not, is becoming increasingly irritating Beerest355 Talk 16:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agree this is way too much to go unaddressed, I feel an indefinite block would deprive us of his more numerous and uncontroversial contributions. See my proposal below.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am not convinced that the user is here for the good of the project. The user seeks to provoke. Wikipedia is not a forum for performance art, and Bonkers is not Lenny Bruce. The time required to monitor the user's contributions outweighs any marginal benefit from the benign edits. Kablammo (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per this. Troll. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Positive contributions must be weighed against the time and energy expended cleaning up after an editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly suggest that you give him one more chance. Extend the ban to all controversial/sensationalist issues whether they be racial, murders, rapes, myths etc. There's plenty of content which Bonkers does create which isn't controversial. I think you're overreacting here. That the article went through DYK clearly shows that Bonkers isn't the only one to blame for judging content anyway. I don't think he creates them to test DYK, but I do think he gets a thrill from creating edgy, interesting content which could be controversial and push the boundaries. I say ban him from creating controversial stuff and stick to pure encyclopedic run of the mill stuff. An experienced editor who knows how to format and source is too valuable to just throw away. Please reconsider.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The previous incident was clear evidence that this editor is in it purely for the trolling. This editor has long since used their last chance to redeem themselves. They chose to ignore that and carry on their disruptive behaviour. Their work, which was mainly DYK nomination work, will not be missed and their constructive edits does in no way make up for the amount of disruption and waste of time of other editors they have caused during their stay here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - IMO Clearly trolling & seems his/her previous block meant fuck all nothing .... Revoking TP access sounds great too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack is not needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose until such a time as User:Davey2010 can demonstrate their encyclopedia contributions exceed those of the user under discussion. What's Davey2010's second-most-edited article, why, it's The Dumping Ground. No comment on their first-most-edited article, I dare not look. Read their comment - immediately above mine. For many of the supporters here, it looks like a targeted killing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) You aren't making any sense. Please provide a reason based on the actions of the editor that is being discussed here, that is Bonkers the Clown, not on the editors contributing their opinions on this board. At least not with such a pathetic rationale as that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Please explain what on earth my contributions have to do with this?? .... I fail to see how editing a bus company and a tv programme is a bad thing ??? Lastly I'm entitled to my opinion (Admittedly It could've been worded better) As above what a pathetic rationale!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC) I think you're forgetting that WP isn't a competition to see who can contribute more. It's voluntary, and just because Davey has fewer edits and fewer DYKs than BTC doesn't make him any less "valuable" to the project. On the flip side, any user who contributes a significant amount of work (not just DYKs, but GAs, Feature content, ITN, etc.) but is highly disruptive shouldn't be given the time of day here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 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.

Alternative proposal: Indefinite DYK and article creation ban

Bonkers the Clown is indefinitely banned from nominating any article to DYK and is indefinitely banned from moving any page to mainspace unless it is approved by an uninvolved admin.

• Support As proposer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support this seems more reasonable than an indefinite block. Bonkers seems to go for quality over quantity when DYK credits are at stake, therefore causing them to have lots of issues, and this is a good way to make sure we still benefit from his decent contributions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a reasonable compromise for those opposed to a complete block. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. If people really can't bear indeffing Bonkers again, then this will at least help a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - he'll find other ways to troll. GiantSnowman 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- As a condition in the case of an unblocking, albeit it's likely going to require more conditions than just this. Sportsguy17 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support as condition of any unblock - for reasons already rather well-stated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I've restored the indef block on this account. Some of you need to get out more if you don't realize you're being trolled, and hard. WP:ROPE was already amply applied when this guy was unblocked not even two months ago upon agreeing not to engage in racial content editing. Today he creates this and makes this edit? No, we've had enough. --Laser brain (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. And I'm with you—this isn't anywhere near a borderline case. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I support this indefinite block. Blatant trolling is unacceptable from anyone. (Disclaimer: I sanctioned him already by revoking his 'reviewer' and 'autopatrolled' rights.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - good block. GiantSnowman 19:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning above.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - IMO Clearly trolling & seems his/her previous block meant fuck all nothing .... Revoking TP access sounds great too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whether it was trolling or just misguided, this user had already proven themselves to be a disruptive influence in the previous ANI case, which wasn't even that long ago. This time round has just reinforced it, and giving them the benefit of the doubt again is not going to help anyone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whether they meant well or not, the cost-to-benefit ratio of allowing this user to edit was too far to "cost" to do anything else. I'd also point out this which if it continues should result in a talk page access revocation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bonkers has caused enough trouble already. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Bold editing is explicitly encouraged and it is clear policy that new articles may be imperfect. Both the Curry Murder and the Kimmel incident were major news and the latter seems to be a significant international incident which has been reported in respectable sources such as Chinese government criticises Jimmy Kimmel show. As I understand it, the user is an ethnic Chinese Singaporean and so should not be expected to share the sensibilities of US people on such topics. For example, I reviewed his fish soup bee hoon — a soup made from fish heads which would likewise not suit western tastes. We have a well-recognised problem of maintaining a neutral point of view if we do not have a global perspective. Today's FA is about a game of American football, for example. We should not censor other tastes, perspectives and approaches. Warden (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting userpages?

Okay, I thought the indef is a good idea, I thought sending his BLP articles to AfD/PROD is a good idea, but can we stop nominating all his userpages for deletion, too, please? He's blocked, we don't need to extirpate all record of the good he's done here, and these deletions seem without reason and--dare I say--petty. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm? Which of his userpages have been nominated? I saw that DavidLeighEllis blanked his userpage and replaced it with a blocked user template, but that's it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown/Shiny stuff‎ is the one I saw. I suppose you're right in that I indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but the blanking of his userpage is along the same vein, and given that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination)‎ is a very similar situation, coming today from the same user, I wouldn't be surprised if an actual MfD nomination for Bonkers's userpage is to follow. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Bonkers' userpage was kept before at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown. So I doubt it'll show up again. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, it didn't keep 'em away from L'Origine du Monde's. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I nominated one of his subpages for deletion, but this was only because it was a WP:STALEDRAFT which is probably not going to have any foreseeable use. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Would you like to give us a link to the user subpage which you nominated for deletion, please, User:Taylor Trescott? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• What was it that made you think it was important to nominate that particular page for deletion, today? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Because it was going to become a WP:STALEDRAFT since the topic was determined non-notable and nobody was going to edit it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• How would it becoming a WP:STALEDRAFT harm the encyclopedia? Please explain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• WP:STALEDRAFT says that userspace is not to be used to store articles indefinitely. Since it would see no foreseeable use, I nominated it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose not deleting userpages without justification

• Userpage deletion should be done under due process, including notification.
• In this case, since the userpage owner cannot respond, notification should be done here as a minimum.
• I propose any administrator that acts on a deletion nomination not suitably notified, should be subject to an arbcom proceeding regarding their competence.
• Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Point (1), provided the speedy criterion don't apply, is quite reasonable. I have no clue what point (2) means. Point (3) is admin abuse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For point 2, I presume Demiurge1000 is saying in cases like here where User:Bonkers The Clown is indef blocked and is less able take part in MFDs or otherwise defend deletions, people should mention deletions here. I'm not really I sure I understand why "here". And in the case of MFDs (perhaps not speedies or PRODs), we already have a place we list them. I don't understand why someone being blocked means we need to mention them here or anywehre else, at most it would suggest a special section at the place we already list MFDs. But even that seems unnecessary, in the case of any xFDs, even with notification it's resonably possible the person who receives the notification may be gone or away at the time despite not being blocked. The whole point of the xFD process is that while we may notify creators as a courtesy, we're not supposed to require their participation to receive a good outcome. Also, I assume a block won't generally stop participation. Generally speaking we mostly only allow people to request unblocking when blocked but I presume in the case of a deletion request for their user page, we would allow resonable responses. Of course in a case where the person has also lost talk page access, that doesn't apply. The only other thing is, in the case of a STALEDRAFT or similar, an indef blocked person can't resonably claim they will continue it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK limited to one set per day

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you know? shall henceforth be limited to one "set" per day, until such a time as the community establishes that the DYK mechanisms are able to support a greater throughput. Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC) These subsections are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the main issue here (which seems to have been resolved). I propose we start different sections if we want to handle this issue which could have a significant impact. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Are you for, or against, the proposal? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Hm... It sounds like it might work, but I don't think it will be hugely effective in resolving the problems listed above. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose this perennial proposal. As has been repeatedly explained over the years at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, arbitrarily restricting DYK's output while doing nothing to control the input creates an inherently unstable system (As this "solution" is usually proposed by DYK bashers, the instability might be the desired goal). For those unfamiliar with basic queuing theory, this proposal is equivalent to blocking the drain to a sink while leaving the tap running at full strength. Just a matter of time before the sink overflows and floods the house. --Allen3 talk 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Are you suggesting that no further DYK submissions should be allowed at all, until things are under control? If not, then what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose as impossible to administer, per reasons stated by Allen3. Right now, there are 256 nominations. How long would it take to put all those on the main page with only one queue a day? And what do you do with the next 256 that line up right behind it? Or, how do you restrict it so only a limited number get nominated? Who is put in charge to decide what is allowed to be nominated and what is not? Who decides who is in charge? Not workable. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Maybe it would take long enough that they would be checked properly before appearing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose – per Allen3 and Maile. The backlog is already significant – reducing to one set a day will make matters worst. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Thus far it appears this is the only option that will prevent the "backlog" from introducing more problematic material onto Wikipedia's main page without proper review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Closed. AN/I is not the place to propose rules for the DYK process; go to the DYK talk page or the Main Page's talk to make such a proposal. By having it here, you hide it from lots of people who are involved in the process. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK removed entirely

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did you know? shall henceforth be removed from the main page, until such a time as the community establishes that the DYK mechanisms are able to ensure that content is both policy compliant, and selected with due regard for the privacy and dignity of any living persons named or otherwise involved in the DYK hook or the supporting article. 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Support as proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose It is getting too ridiculous to do all of this within one ANI discussion. Take this somewhere else Beerest355 Talk 00:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Support unless the filtering gets a lot better. Too many of the DYK reviewers simply don't, or can't, do their jobs properly. This isn't the first time this has happened, and that's not to mention the numerous DYKs that reach the mainpage that are simply wrong or misleading. Given the triviality of most of the hooks (and often the poor state of many of the linked articles) anyway, this is something we could do without. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose. The solution is simple: first, get rid of the pages of rules and special rules and extra special rules. The rules creep has taken over and confuses everyone. This a simple procedure and the rules should be no more than a half page. Second, make DYK nominations and reviews an exercise in reviewing sources and verifying facts. Do not continue to make it a race to the finish line to see who can get the most DYK's or who can review the most. Make it very clear that we are more concerned with quality over quantity, and encourage new users to use DYK as a training ground to practice their verification skills, thereby ensuring that their article writing skills are improved at the same time. In other words, recognize the benefit of cross-training—the skills needed to both nominate and to review are important and should be honed, not just for DYK but for every aspect of Wikipedia, from article writing to dispute resolution. If we were serious about this, we could make DYK a training ground of sorts for more advanced tasks. What is less important is the number of DYK's nominated and/or reviewed. Finally, use the journalistic standards of interest to pick and discard DYK nominations. It is not hard to see that many DYK's are just plain boring, ridiculous, and of no interest to anyone but trinket collectors. The rule should be, if two uninvolved users find it interesting, then it passes the interest barrier. In summary: streamline the rules by getting rid of 90% of them; encourage DYK nominations as an exercise in source and fact checking; and finally, agree upon a simple standard of newsworthiness based on a two person rule. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose do need to do some thinking or review of the way things are handled, but the benefits of buffing stubs and new articles for the most part I think outweighs the problems. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose too much of a knee-jerk reaction. --Rschen7754 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose The fact that the process has been trolled is no reason to retreat and abandon it entirely. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose – a huge fiasco started by one editor should not result in everyone at DYK bearing the brunt of the blame. Yes, DYK has its flaws, but the positives derived from it outweigh any negatives that come along with it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose a review of DYK may be needed, but this goes too far. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose If you don't like DYK, or if it doesn't meet your personal standards, if it makes you unhappy or stressed out, then move on to participate in something else. Why would anyone spin their wheels in a place they don't like? Leave it to people who like DYK. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose basically per Cas Liber - DYK is a great incentive to create new articles, and we want to encourage those. Even if a DYK fails, in most cases we still end up with a new article or an expanded one. Nothing horribly wrong with that, no? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose – also per Cas Liber. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose - per BlueMoonset. The grievance identified for this proposal relates to BLPs, but a great many DYKs have very little to do with people, living or not. Chris857 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Support per Black Kite. Too many of you don't seem to have read the proposal in its entirety. Andy did not propose that DYK be removed forever. Only that it be rested until such a time that its process has been cleaned up. The "problems" (and these go beyond BLP issues) are a total embarrassment and, at this point in time, outweigh the "positives" of this feature. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Cas. Not convinced by MarnetteD, as there are enough people who dislike DYK generally to block a return.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose per many of the above. DYK is an excellent starting point to encourage editors to go on, improve their skills and then create good and featured articles, it's where many of us got a start. To the extent there are problems, make the guidelines clearer than "follows policy." That or eliminate the QPQ requirement so only experienced reviewers do it all. Montanabw(talk) 04:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Closed. AN/I is not the place to propose huge changes for the Main Page; go to the Main Page's talk to make such a proposal. By having it here, you hide it from lots of people who would have input on this idea. Nyttend Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump blanking articles

It seems AndyTheGrump is tracking down various articles Bonkers the Clown did on murders and blanking them with little explanation other than insisting they are BLP violations. Shouting BLP does not absolve him from providing an explanation. As it stands, the most he has offered me is that any article with "murder" in the title is a BLP violation unless there is a conviction, which is not an argument for blanking the article as the title can be changed easily enough. Even if it were, he should at least nominate the article for deletion, rather than just blanking it. He is just blanking repeatedly and doing nothing else. His blankings don't even do anything about the title, which is still there. Should he think these are non-notable crimes he should nominate them for deletion and not blank them repeatedly and trying to use BLP as an excuse for breaching 3RR. I restored one of the articles, retitled it, and even removed every instance of the word "murder" being used in the editorial voice to accommodate him (explaining all that in the edit summary), but he is still blanking the whole thing as a BLP violation. Could someone please intervene here?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, can someone intervene by blocking The Devil's Advocate for multiple WP:BLP violations - both in the content he has restored, and in an edit summary (now redacted). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since when is blanking articles the way we handle deletions at WP? Andy, my friend, three words of advice: Articles for Deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't 'handling deletion'. I was handling multiple blatant WP:BLP violations. Per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a right and a wrong way to do these things. Removing the alleged BLP violations is the right thing. Blanking the whole article and threatening death and destruction to anyone reverting the decision is the wrong thing. If the edits are truly defamatory, we have an oversighting procedure which should be followed. If the subject is not notable, the proper venue is AfD for controversial deletions, PROD for less controversial deletions, and the Speedy process for articles meeting those very specific criteria. Unilaterally blanking lurid "true crime" cruft is not the way it is done. You know that. Carrite (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't address the last point, but when objectionable content is removed it should not be republished, regardless of who removed it and regardless of what else was removed with it. Kablammo (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Blanking the whole thing? Seems like POINT to me. Blanking sections which are unreferenced and/or violate BLP on any article? I support fully. GiantSnowman 12:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but if the whole article is blanked, the whole should not be restored if objectionable content is thereby restored. The principle of innocent dissemination likely would not apply to protect the republisher. Kablammo (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's ask the actual question here: was Andy blanking articles that contained BLP violations, or blanking articles created by Bonkers the Clown assuming they contained BLP violations because of their authorship? The first would be valid. The second would result in a block for WP:POINT, WP:VANDALISM (for that would in fact be what it would be) and "grave-dancing". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

At no point have I blanked an article that didn't contain an obvious WP:BLP violation. Evidently, I'm going to have to do it again: [189] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, Bushranger—put the v-word back in its holster. Even if we suppose (arguendo) that AtG was blanking the articles on the mere assumption that Bonkers' articles were likely to contain BLP violations, it wouldn't be vandalism. It could be POINTy, and it could be poor judgement, but it wouldn't be vandalism. Steps taken with the ultimate intent of benefitting Wikipedia – even by removing content, and even by methods which may be perceived as sub-optimal or even disruptive – are almost never vandalism. Re-read the policy, and learn the difference: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Pulling out an unwarranted, unjustified suggestion of vandalism only serves to inflame a dispute, and is in itself intrinsically and inherently disruptive.

That said, Andy's argument suggests, prima facie, that his actions are an appropriate response under WP:BLP. The remedy of 'blank article pending rewrite with quality sources' is far from unheard-of in the BLP arena. Typically it comes up after Wikipedia receives a complaint from an article's subject, but I see no good reason why we shouldn't be equally proactive regarding bad articles we identify for ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear about this. It is a requirement of WP:BLP policy that articles not contain violations. It isn't remotely an option. Both articles (which incidentally, I didn't find by "tracking down" - but learned about through a post on my talk page [190]) contained multiple self-evident policy violations. Even the article titles violated WP:BLP - asserting that individuals had been murdered before any court had determined as such - and the creator/troll's past history was such that a thorough checking of sources would be necessary before any content could be trusted. As a contributor, I had at least a moral obligation to see that WP:BLP policy wasn't violated, once I'd had my attention drawn to the matter. I did so. And that is where my obligation ended. No contributor is ever obliged to edit a particular article - and given the provenance of the articles, and the dubious notability of the content, I was damned if I was going to waste my time cleaning up after a troll. If others wish to put work into the articles, it is all there in the history - but they are absolutely obliged to ensure content complies with policy before restoring it to public visibility. That is their responsibility if they wish the article to be visible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If a biography really, truely needs to be blanked immediately, then nominating it for speedy deletion as CSD G10 is the most appropriate course of action. Otherwise, it should be submitted to AFD. Deletion-by-blanking has been rejected by the community. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of backdoor implementation of Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion (your link); it's just plain WP:BLP: very much an accepted and necessary policy. And WP:CSD#G10 – which specifically and narrowly addresses 'attack' pages – doesn't necessarily cover all biographical articles (or content) that violates WP:BLP. WP:BLP is very clear on where the burden rests with regard to adding or restoring biographical content and articles—and it isn't on the person removing the material. Would it be nice if Andy also added deletion nominations to these pages? Sure. Is he required to as a condition of following WP:BLP? Definitely not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Either an article has such noxious BLP problems that all of the current and prior text requires immediate removal, or it doesn't. In the former case, it should be properly deleted by an administrator. If the CSD are being interpreted to forbid this, then the policy is overdue for a modification. In the latter case, some portion of the article can be left in place during an AFD discussion. The reason deletion-by-blanking is a failed proposal is that it doesn't really delete anything. Any user familiar with Wikipedia can and probably will pull a previous revision from the page history. We don't bother to revdel every BLP violation ever removed from the current version of an article only because having a non-empty current version discourages leafing through the article history for dirt; revdel is thus saved for particularly obnoxious material. Blanking entire articles certainly makes a point, but doesn't accomplish anything useful. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It ensured that BLP violations were removed from immediate view. Which was not only useful, but necessary. Which is why I did it. It was then open to anyone who considered either article actually to cover anything of note (which the current AfD discussions seem not to support) to check the sourcing etc, and then edit one or both to ensure compliance with WP:BLP policy. The suggestion that I did this as some sort of backdoor route to deletion is not only supposition, but based on a false premise. I was fully aware that blanking an article doesn't delete it, so suggesting that deletion was my objective makes no sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

To this end, I have proposed a new CSD to allow the proper disposal of any articles which really, truely require immediate deletion for BLP reasons. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on Andy's side, especially as I've done the same before. BLP demands immediacy. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm on Andy's side, too, but am dismayed that this dramafest is obscuring the bigger picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• So, are you two suggesting that if I were to find an easily-fixed BLP violation on part of the page for Barack Obama I could instead repeatedly blank the entire article, breaching 3RR with impunity, and anyone undoing that blanking action would be accused of violating BLP? There is a reason why policy says blanking should only be used when there is no way to address concerns through normal editing. Andy has not given any indication that this is a case where blanking was necessary. In fact, his initial argument seems to have been less that he could not fix the article but more "I don' wanna" because no one "should have to waste time cleaning up after a blocked troll" in his words. With the initial case that prompted all of this Andy did go in and fix the underlying issues, and that article had more problems that were much more egregious than any possible issues with these two.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The Devil's Advocate, rather than inventing hypothetical scenarios for the Barack Obama article, would you care to address the actual issue here, and explain exactly why you repeatedly posted BLP-policy-contravening material in full public view in the articles concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do not believe any actual BLP violations were restored that I did not promptly fix myself. One article did not involve a named suspect and in the case that did involve a named suspect, I edited the material appropriately. The problem is when you blank the entire article without nominating it for deletion, rather than fixing it, and fail to even identify what you consider a BLP violation, you are essentially forcing other editors to figure out everything that you might consider wrong with the article and fix it for you. If they do not find everything you consider an issue, then you blank it again and accuse them of violating BLP. Do you really not see how that is not the appropriate way to approach the issue?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• If you sincerely believe that an article that asserts as a fact that an unconvicted suspect "...solicited sexual intercourse from [the victim], and after she rejected him he hit [her] at least three times on the head with a 10-kilogram dumbbell, killing her instantly" [191] isn't a BLP violation, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The suspect was not named in that article so I simply looked to make sure there was nothing truly egregious. You can make this about me all you like, but if you had actually pointed out or addressed specific violations, rather than blanking an entire article the whole situation would have been avoided. As I said to you before, WP:BLP is clear that if a violation can be fixed without blanking or deleting than that is what should be done. What you are arguing is that you should be able to do whatever you want to the article when invoking BLP, even blanking it without nominating it for deletion or mentioning specific violations, then force other people to fix every possible issue you identify with the threat of repeated blankings and cries of "BLP violator" if they fail to satisfy you, and that is not supported by policy or common sense. Your actions were no different than some random IP blanking an article and saying "this article is false" or "this article is defamatory" as it does not offer anything constructive to allow someone to address whatever concerns you have with the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The above response clearly indicates to me that you lack the elementary competence to edit articles where WP:BLP policy may be an issue. The article stated as a fact that the suspect killed the victim. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - and your attempt to shift the blame onto me for your utter disregard for policy is beneath contempt. Stay the fuck out of BLPs until you have learned how policy applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The fact the individual was not identified did not make it an immediate BLP concern to me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The article stated that a particular individual was in police custody. The article stated that this particular individual killed the victim. It makes no difference whatsoever that the individual's name had been withheld - the article was asserting that the individual in custody was guilty of murder. Though your suggestion that 'immediate BLP concerns' were in any way relevant to your behaviour is entirely disproven by the fact that your initial revert, after I had blanked the article, did precisely nothing to address the BLP issues. [192]. Did you make any effort to address the issues at that time? No. Did you make any effort to contact me to ask what the issues were? No. You reverted the article, in the full knowledge that I'd made it clear that there were issues. You violated WP:BLP policy. Repeatedly. And then you had the audacity to come here and complain that I was reverting your violations of policy. Your behaviour is beneath contempt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• That the individual is unidentified makes a big difference and I do not think anyone would objectively suggest it does not make a difference. As far as contact, with regards to this article it was brought up in the AfD and you raised your concerns, which focused exclusively on use of the term "murder" to describe the crime. If you mean the other article, well, there was only one actual BLP violation and I addressed it right away.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not liking the Pointy gravedancing going on here. Blanking pages with no rationale doesn't build an encyclopedia. Take it to a normal venue and let process run its course without indiscriminately blanking Bonker's articles. KonveyorBelt 22:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How exactly does a statement that the article grossly violates WP:BLP policy amount to 'no rationale'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Konveyor Belt and The Devil's Advocate above, Blanking as opposed to more careful removal of only such content as actually violated BLP was unwarranted and inappropriate, and reversion was desirable. DES ^(talk) 23:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You think that restoring BLP violations in articles is 'desirable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@KB. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BLP - the first paragraph (clue - the bold bit) rather than slinging what appear to be rather immature and apparently incorrect accusations at a fellow-editor doing the correct thing. Leaky Caldron 23:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently some have misinterpreted my comment as vandalism. BLP says that if a section is in violation it should be removed, it says nothing of deletion by blanking. KonveyorBelt 01:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy started "careful removal" on the article which began this, Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu. The majority of the content of that article was a series of BLP violations. Now, three days, seven editors, and several dozen edits later, it may possibly comply with BLP, but should be deleted as not meeting the bar of notability. The other articles Andy blanked also did not meet that bar, while clearly violated our BLP policies.

The articles in question were created for the express purpose of shock, getting as many lurid allegations as possible, whether proven or unproven, into articles on the main page. There is no reason that should be tolerated. There is no reason why the survivors of the victims should encounter lurid retellings of a tragedy, mirrored across the internet, while Wikipedia goes about its ceremonial ways in deciding whether to delete, save, merge, or tinker with articles on the subject.

And it is never appropriate to revert to a version of an article containing BLP violations. Never. Kablammo (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to blank an entire article because of a few issues that one could easily fix without blanking the article?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Given your evident inability to recognise a gross BLP violation in plain sight (see above), I hardly think that you are in any position to comment on what is 'appropriate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If an editor posts gross BLP violations to an article, there is nothing wrong with reverting the edit entirely, even if only some of the added content violated policy. I would never chastise an editor for failing to tease out only the offending content. The onus is on those who want the content restored to find a way to do it without violating BLP. As far as I'm concerned, the same principle can apply when the "edit" was the creation of an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Including the namee of a accused person in an article on a crime is often an ambiguous situation, because the rule for removing the names is based on Do No Harm, where the names are so widely published it makes no difference, and this is a matter of judgment. In doubt, we remove the names, but there is often a very strong disagreement, & where there is good faith disagreement, discussion is needed. . I cannot think of any case where having just this as the violation would been blanking the entire article, much less deleting it, unless there was no other content at all; even if the name was in the title, a rename takes care of it. BLP is not a free pass to remove contentthat is not harmful. The BLP noticeboard exists for a purpose, and in undoubted violations the action is very rapid. (In those few cases where the decision came to me, I've usually removed the names--I take the policy very seriously.) I also take seriously that it has limits, and I am concerned that some people use it to override all considerations, including that of consensus. It often does over-ride other considerations, but nothing over-rides consensus. We are not here to shoot first and think later, or to apply our own interpretation in cases wherewe know or ought to know there is disagreement. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. The blanking of entire articles comprised of sourced content, under the guise of a suspected BLP, violation is not appropriate. Fix the violation rather than blanking the entire article. These kinds of BLP concerns come up every day and they are handled in a timely manner via procedures (BLPN, CSD or AfD) which involve the community as a whole. There's no need for systematic, unilateral blanking.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. . . . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. . . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Proxy editing request

Bonkers The Clown has written a new article on his talk page and has asked that it be moved into the article space, with a request that a DYK submission also be made on his behalf. I'd be inclined to remove talk page access as it's designed for discussion of his block and requesting an unblock, not as a way to circumvent a block and to continue editing, but as there's still some discussion going on here and he could still require access to his talk page in the immediate future to discuss the block, I'd rather there's some discussion about whether to remove talk page access. Nick (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the offending text, and I was tempted to remove his talk page access. Looking at his contributions since the block, he seems intent on continuing to push boundaries and rattle sabres rather than construct a legitimate unblock request. --Laser brain (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there is an unblock request there now... but it feels more like trolling than any legitimate promise. Also, we went through the same "final chance" not that long ago, and look what happened. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is intentional trolling there. His offered unblock conditions don't look unreasonable. My main concern, given his apparent immaturity, is that a too swift unblock may send the wrong message and encourage him to continue testing boundaries to his own detriment. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course those don't look unreasonable. But look at the rest of the request; it smacks of pure trolling. Particularly the attempt at playing the "I'm a prolific contributor, I beg you to unblock me" card (which isn't that much of a paraphrase of the wording). This guy is a reasonably intelligent troll who knows how to play the system. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to one's contribution history can be considered trolling. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on. This user has done a hell of a lot of things that are clearly trolling; the pseudo-"grovelling" in the unblock request smacks of yet more trolling. And given the responses of the two admins to it, it seems that they didn't buy it any more than I did. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 19 November 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.

Alternative595

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

---

The page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Harris

The revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Harris&action=history

The user: alternative595

This began in October. I stayed off the page for a month, thinking the user would cool down.

User repeatedly removes my edits which consists of updating credits, dates of release for films and source material or correcting misspelled names or adding the name of the character. Further, they place "hidden" messages with threats and foul language stating that my "****ing edits will be be removed" and then some name calling -- see history or edit where they "hide" the message within the text. They have been warned. I wrote to wiki media (cannot insert e-mail address here) but all they could do was to warn about the hidden warning messages with the foul language. They cannot stop this back and forth undo of my edits.

And a new foul/hostile message appeared this evening, despite the earlier warning. Yet, when alternative595 performs an undo, they revert back to old, incorrect or misspelled information.

They do not own the page; they did not even create it. This began in October and I stayed away for one month because the person is hostile, angry and the hidden messages are foul and threatening. When I arrived, the page was cited for lack of source material. Yet as I added source material, this user began removing and undoing. Now they undo or remove everything I add. I do not revise their material, or any former material. I update credits, synopsis, dates of release for a film, and provide a source for a statement or credit.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• I gave them an only warning. That page is pretty poorly verified, BTW, but that's not my concern here. Please re-report if they lose their cool again; they promised they wouldn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 November 2013‎ (PST)

And again, before the warning but after the promise. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 23:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I was preparing a response, they undid my last edits again. Of course, doing that made the offensive foul language message reappear AGAIN.

There is some odd attachment by alternative595 to this page, and they can have their foul language hidden messages, and the repetitious undo of any contributions. Yes, it is poorly sourced and verified; I was attempting to contribute but I think I am done with someone who feels the need to repeatedly hide foul language hidden messages in order to prevent contributions. Something is wrong with alternative595. Thank you for trying.

Legaleze (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Alternative595 for 24 hours, for the insertion of hidden abusive/foul comments into a BLP when told not to by Drmies. I've asked that Alternative595 provide some sources and to start discussing their edits if they would like to be unblocked early, similarly, I've threatened to extend the block if they refuse to collaborate with others. I'm unable to keep an eye on things until morning now, so if there's progress, any other administrator has my blessing to lift or alter the block as appropriate. Nick (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I hoped in vain that this could be dealt with by maturity on their part instead of a block on our part. I might pry a little further. What does experience tell you, Nick? That this ends with an indefinite block? Let's hope you're wrong, if that was your answer. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the editor's history that explains this--the hidden warning and the blatant disregard for a bunch of warnings and an ANI thread. Perhaps a momentary lapses. I hope this can be closed tomorrow this time. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, it's a bit unusual for the editor in question. I've just had a look at Alternative595's talk page and I see they've removed your warning and my block notice so we do at least know they've seen our warnings. I'll leave the block to expire and see if that brings a change in behaviour, this was encouraging but four hours later we've got this so it's worth giving the editor another chance to see if they're going to improve their behaviour. The problem we're facing is that it's BLPs that Alternative595 is editing and we can't be allowing them to go around making unsourced edits, reverting without discussion and leaving obscene comments hidden in the markup for the page, so if there is no real change in behaviour, we will have to consider blocking the user again. Nick (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Experience tells me that it will not end, even if I stay off the page (which I will do). Eventually, there will be someone else or the page will just age-out. I posted on their talk page that this discussion was going on and invited them here, as instructed. Why are they not here explaining what is going on? The page is unverifiable/unsourced (they removed that Wiki message too; the page had been flagged as unsourced more than once). I don't know Wiki's options, but there is some issue going on about edits; the page will never become verifiable/sourced. If the option was to remove the page, that would be my decision. Think "King Solomon."

Legaleze (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is for user Drmies, in reply to above. I disagree that there is nothing in the editor's history, alternative595, that explains this. Yesterday you flagged the page for lack of verfiable sources, and posted same above here in response to me. Your flag was immedately removed by alternative595'; check the history at the top. One cannot update or source the material when another controls the page.

Furthermore, in the history, if you go back, on October 26th, a user, Dream Focus, also removed a similar and virulent hidden warning of foul language and threats. At that time I was already on hiatus and had stopped making edits weeks earlier because I saw what alternative595 was doing; I had not been to the page for weeks. In fact, is it not a consideration that the indiscriminate and repetitive use of "undo", as alternative595 uses it, is something that Wiki asks to be avoided?

Realizing that in some part this is all very childish, alternative595 is also using bully tactics and that most people will just go away and leave the page alone, rather than complain. I was thinking I am done here, but I see no reason why anyone needs to be intimidated by this alternative595 who also chose not to come here either. This tells me that there is no defense for such actions of intimidation and harrassment of other users.

My vote, if I had one, is to remove the page entirely now. It was once flagged for deletion, much earlier. It's of little value; one cannot update the page; information is lacking or simply wrong, and updates or edits are rolled back to incorrect information. The page is being used solely for the purposes of intimidation, harrassment and control of others -- certainly not for informational purposes because they would want it updated. It makes no sense. It's become a bully tool for alternative595.

At the least, there has to be some way to prevent the repetitious inclusion of foul language threats and name calling that are hidden within the text, even if Wiki cannot prevent abuse of the "undo" feature. Because when there are no reprocussions for this continued behavior, what stops using any page as a vehicle of intimidation? Just something to think about because this can escalate into a bigger problem if alternative595 gets away with this and is allowed to continue. It may now be helpful to examine alternative595's other histories to see if there are other pages with similar hidden threats. Thank you for your help.

Legaleze (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I bullied you in any way. Those comments were not meant to harass but as of late, people have been deleting Sean Harris' page and replacing it with things like "FBFJBFJfjdbbfa" and the hidden message was meant to thwart those people. That was wrong on my part, and definitely not the right way of going about it. Also, I accidentally saved a copy of Sean Harris' page holding that same hidden message, so when I reverted the page I accidentally left those hidden messages along with it. That would explain why it seemed that I may have been 'constantly' threatening the editors; a complete misunderstanding! As for my edits, I was totally in the wrong. I saw Beware the Night and realized that the date has been pushed back to 2014, I was acting frivolously and I apologize. Before I began editing Sean Harris' page, it consisted of nothing more than a few paragraphs of information, and I took the liberty of giving him a table featuring his film and TV work. I never meant to be a bully and those hidden messages were out of line, and were not directed to the edits concerning his early short films. I got rid of those short films because I didn't find them on IMDB, but now I realize I shouldn't have done that either and I apologize dearly. I would very much like to start anew, and I thank-you for your edits and help on Sean Harris' page. He's a great actor, after all. Alternative595 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I think this should be the end of it. If Alt595 pulls a stunt like this again they'll be blocked much longer, perhaps indefinitely. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Ah well. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 21 November 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.

IP 202.67.40.28 and its IP ranges violating WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPCAT

See IP 202.67.40.28's contributions, the IP's talk page, this report about the IP at the WP:BLP noticeboard and this section on my talk page about the IP. This user has been warned multiple times about WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP violations; the IP has also been violating the aforementioned policies as IP 202.67.40.24, one of its IP ranges. I have not checked to see if this user is doing this with other IP ranges as well. I also have not been eagerly keeping up with this user's edits. These latest two times I came across him or her have simply been due to my being at an article he or she recently edited, and my having checked the edit history.

Linking FreeRangeFrog's username here so that FreeRangeFrog will be alerted to this section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend a preventive block, to see if that will prompt them to communicate with us. I believe the IPs contributions are meant in good faith, however they are definitely in violation of BLPCAT. The spread and number of edits also makes it hard to deal with this by protecting pages. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Any administrator willing to help with this matter? Mark Arsten, perhaps? I'm not sure if Mark does IP range blocks; I don't remember on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that great at rangeblocks, but I try. Just blocked 202.67.40.0/24 for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive, non-collaborative, edit warring by User:Tiller54

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:Tiller54 is a prolific editor who focuses almost exclusively on U.S. political topics. See here. However, this editor has repeatedly demonstrated an inability and/or refusal to edit collaboratively and constructively. Just recently, he/she has been warned by at least two editors that he/she is guilty of violating WP:OWN: here, here.

User:Tiller54 has a long history of engaging in endless edit wars with numerous editors: here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, this laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here, here, the laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, this laundry list of scrubbed complaints here, here,here, here, and here.

User:Tiller54 has been warned by administrators: here, been warned for various violations of WP policies & practices: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,and here,

Also User:Tiller54 has been repeatedly warned about the need to use edit summaries, especially when reverting: here, and here. This is because s/he makes wholesale reverts without discussion or consensus. Another tactic is to make those same large reverts with only a minor, passing mention of their extensive nature in summary. Several recent examples of this, on just one article, may be seen here, here, here, here.

This is also not User:Tiller54's first ANI. This was just a few months ago: See here. The editor was blocked. At the time, sound advice was given to the editor about what to do "Instead of reverting back and forth": here, but obviously the message didn't sink in, because here we are again, just a few short months later for the same thing. But instead of learning from the experience, s/he and another editor found humor. Other editors have also noticed and complained about this collaboration before: here.

These two editors regularly work in tandem, without identifying their long-time collaboration: to impose their will on editors and articles and give the appearance of "consensus" where none actually exists. Thus preemptively placing a chill on real efforts to obtain consensus from legitimately unengaged 3rd parties. Obviously this comes perilously close to a vio of WP:TAGTEAM, if it doesn't actually already cross that line. But the most recent responses are instructive: see here and here. Or here.

Further, User:Tiller54 was also blocked again, barely 2 months later, for even more edit warring here.

Most recently, User:Tiller54 is currently attempting to engage in yet another editor war with me here, and rather than discussing individual edits, which I intentionally made one-at-a-time to facilitate discussion, and ignoring my talk page warnings to follow policy and edit collaboratively see here; this is the response I get: One wholesale revert with an intentionally understated edit summary, followed by two innocuous subsequent edits here and here, to further impose his/her will on the article. This is also part of a predictable pattern by this editor: Huge reverts, followed by minor ones, so the larger ones cannot easily be undone. The same can be seen here, followed by here - with even the most basic request that User:Tiller54 follow WP policies, guidelines and properly quote official and reliable sources, getting answered like this.

User:Tiller54's edit pattern is clear. Persistent, argumentative, frequently combative, disruptive edit-warring, rather than collaboration; and when warned, the warnings have no effect. Even when twice blocked for periods of 48 and 72 hours respectively, User:Tiller54's actions indicate no change, and once unblocked, s/he simply commences the same disruptive behavior.

User:Tiller54 has also been warned more than once, as the edit logs reflect, of what appears to be aggressive POV pushing on several political articles. Instead of collaborating with opposing viewpoints, User:Tiller54 simply pushes back until the other editor, risking incivility, simply gives up or gets sucked into an edit war - which User:Tiller54 then uses to his/her advantage. This behavior harms the project and outweighs any positive contributions this editor may make.

Therefore, there remains no choice but to recommend a block of significant duration for User:Tiller54. As the record is clear that blocks of just days, as has recently been proven on 2 separate occasions, have had no effect in changing User:Tiller54's behavior. Bear in mind, this would be the 3rd block in just the past few months for User:Tiller54. All for the identical behavior. But since User:Tiller54 has demonstrated no interest in proactively changing his/her behavior, there is no choice but for the community to act decisively.

Especially since it would be very difficult to reasonably expect that another short term block would succeed - when two others have just so recently failed. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of those 'complaints' you cited are automated messages warning about missing brackets from BracketBot (talk · contribs); I tried to read through this complaint but it's so rambling and long that I don't even know what the complaint is, along with the 'complaints' being made by low edit IP's, including your IP which have been immediately answered by Tiller54. Please tell us what you're trying to say, in fewer words. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your quotation marks - twice - around "complaints", reveal more than your question. The first three paragraphs link to over 30 examples of edit-warring and other policy vios. After those, the automated messages are listed: to show an editor who makes the same policy/format mistakes over and over, without ever learning to correct them. But you ignored all the disruptive editing to focus on the bot messages? As to "low edit IP's" - what edit number makes IPs eligible to address legitimate concerns here - in your view? Given your long tenure and the WP rights you are entrusted with, you already know your bias is not supported by WP policy. While you may be dismissive after a partial reading, editors reading the full complaint will understand that the record shows that User:Tiller54 was disruptive with all editors, not just "low edit IPs". 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally going for bot notices from BracketBot or DPL bot in a notice like this cries out desperation to me; there should be no need to heckle an editor just because they missed a bracket here or there, or redirected to a redirect, and again, I don't know what you're wanting us to do. Asking for a long-term block of Tiller54 for only two short duration blocks for 3RR which ended up with both reporter and defendant being blocked that they learned from? That's not going to happen. Also, 3RR noticeboard≠ANI. The user has not previously been taken to ANI, and that difference needs to be made clear here. Again, re-state the action you want, in fewer words, because as I'm the only respondent it's clear everyone else has been unable to make sense of what you're trying to say. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My intent here is to bring the record of Tiller54's non-collaborative and tendentious editing to the attention of admins to be addressed. If I've done so inartfully, feel free to fault the messenger, but not at the expense of the message. I've never used, nor felt the need to use, this forum before; as most disagreements with editors are generally resolved by dialogue and compromise. But when an editor refuses compromise, but only engages in dialogue: then ignores WP policies and guidelines; removes reliable sources; removes official sources; reverts all contributions by other editors; and fails to disclose the nature of his own edits in the edit summaries? What then? How about when the editor is addressed with these concerns? And in response, the editor simply doubles down and persists in the behavior and in refusing to collaborate? What then? How about when said editor then calls in another editor to "backup" his methods and edits - and you discover that the two regularly tagteam in this manner? What then? Please tell me what options are left beyond addressing the matter on a Noticeboard? So if all you see are BracketBot notices? They are not the real issue here, and I regret including them, as you've become distracted by them. But you asked what I want. I'm requesting some kind of mentoring, monitoring, warning, block or other mechanism that will compel Tiller54 to act collaboratively and less disruptively moving forward. How that is accomplished is a call best left for admins reviewing his edit history and some of the history I've provided. Because the history is also that short blocks haven't worked. I hope that I am clearer now. But if you still find my concerns indecipherable: at your request or others, I'll pull from the original, specific examples of each complaint I've just detailed. Also, it does not appear that both parties were blocked in both cases: See here and here. Only the reporter - Tiller54 - was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring.. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

When you add incorrect information to a page and I and another editor remove it because it's incorrect, that is not "refusing to compromise". As I've said now several times, I tried to explain why the edits were incorrect, both in my edit summaries and on the talk page, where I left a lengthy and still unreplied-to post that explained in detail what the inaccuracies were. You carried on adding them anyway, so I asked another editor to weigh in. Your claims that I "revert all contributions by other editors" are patently ludicrous and as for your allegation that Muboshgu and I "regularly tagteam", never mind the fact that we don't, but to what end? To ensure that pages are ordered properly and don't contain inaccurate information? Tiller54 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You've just explained and demonstrated the case against you. I'll use just a few examples to disprove your claim that I added "incorrect information" that you "and another editor" were forced to remove "because it's incorrect": See here: Where the only official source is apparently "incorrect". Here: Where quoting the official source is apparently also "incorrect". Here: Where the WP style guide on WP:JOBTITLES, which states they are common nouns, is apparently "incorrect." And... - Here: Because although the link with the abbreviation of "US" in Democratic Party clearly works (and is used throughout this project) "it is incorrect!" - and must immediately be replaced with Democratic Party with "United States" fully spelled out! So, in one single edit, you reverted: an official source (twice), a WP style guideline, a wikilink and more that wasn't to your liking - because they were all - in your view - "incorrect". Because, as you explain below in your 2nd response: "removing inaccurate information is not the same as refusing to collaborate." I could rest this case right now. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed that the official sources were inaccurate or that the quote you added was inaccurate. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the version of the lead that you tried to push which was full of inaccuracies, as was detailed on the talk page (which you ignored). Secondly, I didn't revert or remove any official sources or quotes from the official source. The "official source" is right there on the page, under the ref name "Results". The quote about the recount you added was also not removed but just changed from being a blockquote to being part of the single paragraph detailing the possible recount. Yes, job titles are capitalised when referring to a specific person. As I tried to show you on the talk page. The most baffling thing though was the inconsistency in your removal of the capital letters. Half of the instances of "State Senator" you changed to "state Senator" and the other half you changed to "state senator". Almost as if you didn't know what you were doing. And yes, I corrected a link. You knew what the correct link was, so why go and use the other one in the first place? Very odd. Tiller54 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this very simple for you. You began your lengthy defense with: "When you add incorrect information to a page and I and another editor remove it because it's incorrect, that is not "refusing to compromise"." So understand, your equivocations aside - you reverted those edits. Try as mightily as you will to explain away what I supposedly "know perfectly well", that is what I "know perfectly well". You reverted them. And others. I also "know perfectly well" your tactics, not just with me, but with other editors as well. That is why we're here. By the way, in common usage, as the WP style guide and I both have tried to tell you, "State Senator" is not a title. "Senator" is. In State "X", the senators are not referred to as "State Senator X", but simply as "Senator X". So I knew very well what I was doing. Just as I knew what I was doing by not capitalizing the phrase: "While the statewide elections for governor and lieutenant governor garnered more national attention, the race for attorney general was the most competitive." I was following the style guide - which at WP:JOBTITLES says: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." That's exactly what I was doing - as I repeatedly explained. Meanwhile, what were you doing persistently? Reverting the style guide, and by your own admission, refusing to collaborate - because my edits were "incorrect". So the only thing "odd" there, was your behavior. While the only thing "odd" here, is your continued attempt to defend it. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused here. You accuse me of refusing to compromise, then when I point out that the edits you were making were simply incorrect and that I left unreplied-to talk page messages explaining why your edits were incorrect, you change tack. You then claim that the inaccuracies I was referring to were your most recent edits and you claimed that I removed official sources and then accused me of correcting links (?!?). When I point out that I didn't remove the official source and asked what was wrong with correcting a link, you say that I use "tactics" with you and "other editors". I don't blame the editor above for having no idea what your complaint is because it changes every single time you post. Now, to clarify, the inaccuracies that another editor and I removed from the page were these ones. You and another IP (Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD61:E0F0:2897:4163:FED4:A4A7, whose entire edit history is 6 edits to the page on a single day and who has since vanished) ignored requests to stop and also ignored the lengthy post I left on the talk page, so I invited another editor to contribute. Do you actually get why they were inaccurate? You claimed, among other things, that the deadline for counties to report to the State Board was November 13. It wasn't, it was November 12, as the references clearly stated.

As for your more recent edits claiming that ""State Senator" is not a title", then why did you change half the instances to "state Senator" and half to "state senator"? Like I said, your inconsistencies aside, you are incorrect. Take a look at this page, for example. Or this one. If you'd prefer a non-election page, how about this one? On all of those pages, when referring to a specific person, "State Senator" is used and not "state senator" or even "state Senator". Why? Because the term isn't being used generically. It's referring to a specific person. Still not convinced? This category of "Virginia State Senators", which is a list of specific members of the Virginia Senate, hence the capitalisation as "State Senators". Tiller54 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your flailing, sadly, is transparent. And desperate. Now, I must be "confused" - apparently. Why? Because I quoted you. Let's be clear: Not only have I accused you of failing to compromise - you have already admitted here. Several times. So that issue is done. You have repeatedly claimed my edits were "incorrect." Your only response when confronted with removing official sources, reliable sources and ignoring policies and guidelines, was to outright lie and say: "I didn't remove the official source." Luckily the edit log easily exposes that lie for what it is: See here. Note your removal of the official source, the Commonwealth of Virgina State Board of Elections, in the paragraph just above Line 44. Also to be clear, your "lengthy post was nothing but your latest redundant and false argument. Also, it was a response to my answer - requesting that finally stop your nonsense and collaborate and follow policy. In fact, I had asked 6 times on the talk page for you to follow policy, edit collaboratively and stop reverting reliable sources. I even asked on your talk page - only to have you scrub it and request that I confine my responses to the article's talk page. So for you to pretend that I never responded to your efforts to collaborate on the talk page is as ludicrous as it is, just another provable lie. So that issue is done. You made no effort to collaborate. Instead, you just responded with more empty repetition. By your own admission, all you said in that last response was, "As I said", "As I have pointed out", etc. So you were saying nothing new. Rather than collaborating and following policy, as you had repeatedly been asked to do, you offered neither. Regarding the November date? If you felt it was wrong, did it never occur to you to simply fix the date, rather than reverting the entire edit, THREE reliable sources and all, as you did here? Or did you revert, not only out of spite - but because those THREE reliable sources: Time Magazine, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post, all called the race - which ran contrary to your false narrative and repeated nonsense that: "However, your claim that "Media outlets do [call the race], as many have done already." is patently untrue. They have not called the race, which is why that point is mentioned in the lead." That editing behavior is inexcusable. Rewriting a page to suit your own narrative and removing reliable sources because they disprove your false narrative violates more WP policies than I need to name. Now that issue is done.

Finally, as to your arguments about "State Senator", I saved the best for last. You provided 4 links. All just from Wikipedia: 2 you yourself had edited on (hardly definitive) and 2 that were simply WP lists. First, let's examine just one of the 2 that you edited on. The Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 article was created on February 15, 2011 by - Muboshgu. The article read: "The incumbent governor, Republican Bob McDonnell." And so it remained, for 2 years, 8 months, 9 days, or 982 days: enduring 22 edits from Muboshgu during that time... and approximately 135 edits from: Tiller54! In that entire time, the edit remained. UNTIL Tiller54 began a months-long edit battle with User:Reallibertyforall and finally on October 13, 2013 - Tiller54 decided to do this. Suddenly - and with nothing else changing in the sentence - it absolutely had to be: "The incumbent Governor, Republican Bob McDonnell." Wow. What a coincidence! What changed after 135+ of your own edits?! Can't wait to hear your excuse for that one. Just as your original response to my use of "state Senator" was: "The most baffling thing though was the inconsistency in your removal of the capital letters. Half of the instances of "State Senator" you changed to "state Senator" and the other half you changed to "state senator". Almost as if you didn't know what you were doing." The WP style guide aside, have you seriously no experience with Google? I wonder if you also question did the Washington Post know what they were doing. Or ABC. Or CNN. Or the Chicago Tribune Or the Los Angeles Times. Or the New York Times. Or the Charlotte Observer, etc. How about The Guardian, or USA Today. Or more importantly, how about the official Senate of Virginia? So that issue is done. You failed to follow the WP style guide, or any style guide; just as you presumed I was wrong, when in fact, you were. But again, this is not about these specific cases alone. It's about what you do regularly and consistently on this project. Not just with me, but with several other editors as well. That's why you're on this Noticeboard. From the complaints on your talk page, that you have scrubbed, several editors have found dealing with you a less than constructive or pleasant experience. I'm simply one of the latest - and was willing to take the time to compile a collection of your disruptive actions and behavior. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations and ramblings are getting longer and more ridiculous, so I'll be as brief as possible. You accused me of removing the official source, the link to the State Board of Elections, and then lying about it. It's still on the page, here and here. As I've said several times, my long and unreplied-to post on the talk page was not "redundant and false argument". Had you actually bothered to read it, you would have understood why I said your edits were incorrect. Because, for example, you claimed that the deadline for counties to report results to the state was November 13. It was not, as this official source shows: "November 12th, 2013 Deadline for local electoral boards...". If someone includes something that is clearly incorrect on an article and someone else corrects it, are they guilty of "refusing to compromise"? No, they're just following policy. As for what else was wrong with that edit apart from the incorrect deadline date? Well there's the incorrect links, the presumption that Herring has already won the election regardless of the potential recount, the mentioning of a hypothetical situation dependent upon the results before even mentioning the result, the repetition of the recount, and various badly-phrased sentences (eg: "The results were expected to be certified on November 25", which should read "The results are expected..." because the recount hasn't happened yet). Finally, three reliable sources called the race? No, the only one to have actually done so out of the three you mentioned is Time. One source calling the race and the rest not doing so is not a "false narrative", it's called cherry picking.

You really should read your sources before you post them as "proof". Half the links are inconsistent, referring specifically to Deeds as a "state Senator" or a "State Senator". And the link to the Senate of Virginia? Doesn't even use the words "State Senator", capitalised or otherwise. But it doesn't matter what various newspapers' style guides are. Wikipedia doesn't use them, it uses its own, which states that titles "should be in lower case when used generically". Where this is not the case, as various articles and categories show, when referring to President Nixon or State Senator Deeds, they are capitalised. And you still haven't explained why your edits were completely inconsistent, changing half to "state Senator" and the other half to "state senator". The policy is quite clear, as are the articles and categories. You and your edits are not. Tiller54 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone actually reviewing the evidence and your responses, would be forced to come to the same conclusion that I have. You will lie to the last breathe - even in the face of overwhelming evidence - to try to save your own skin. Nor will you ever apologize or admit your errors, even when confronted by a mountain of evidence proving them. No wonder so many editors have complained about you on your talk page that you have to regularly scrub their comments! That is telling! Even here, on this ANI, you cannot keep yourself from lying, even in the face of the edit log, which is absolute and cannot be contorted to suit your false narrative. For example, the question was not whether the State Board of Elections link was in the article now. The question was whether or not you removed it originally as you clearly did - just above Line 44. So your attempt at deflecting from that action to know is as pathetic as it is transparent. Since you couldn't dispute the FACT of your actions you tried to change the subject. But the record cannot be changed. And the only reason the source is back in the article now is because I PUT IT THERE!. So your lie is provably false. Also, I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about the sources calling the race, when they clearly do. Perhaps you're counting on people not reading the links. But in the interest of brevity, I'll leave it to the admins to read the sources, then decide. In fact, I'm perfectly prepared to stake my credibility, and the credibility of this complaint, on that outcome. Will you? In addition, your claim is a reversal of your previous comments, both here and on the TP, that no reliable sources had ever called the race. Oops! Guess in the face of evidence, now you were forced to change your story! As regards the "state Senator" issue, my point was simple, and try as you did, you can't sidestep it. The fact is, you were supplied with abundant links from reliable sources that used both "state senator" and/or "state Senator". So your claim that they had to be inherently wrong was proven false again. The only thing you managed to get correctly, is that the WP style guide prevails. Yes it does. But you only give lip service to it on a Noticeboard. Not in practice. This, despite my repeated requests: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - you refused to abide by it. But it's fine. You're done here. You've been exposed. All that's left here is for the admins to review the record here and on your scrubbed talk page for more complaints about you. This record has admittedly been made tedious by your never-ending excuses, deflections, misdirections, and lies - but I am confident that review will compel admins to do what is in the best interests of the community and this project. That is to - for the 3rd time and hopefully more permanently this time - finally, rein you in. Contrary to your clear desire for this to go on ad nauseum, there really is nothing more that needs to be said. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm lying? What evidence have you offered for this? An edit where I supposedly removed "the only official source". If you actually look at the edit you posted, there's clearly a link to the State Board of Elections still there. How can I have removed it from the article when in the edit you post as "proof", it's still in the article?!?
• "I don't understand what you hope to gain by lying about the sources calling the race, when they clearly do." Like I said, look at the sources! Of the 3 you just claimed had called the race, Time Magazine, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post, only Time actually called the race. The Washington Post said that Herring held a lead, a recount was coming and the result wouldn't likely be known until December. And The Richmond Times-Dispatch wasn't actually a link to that paper, but a mislabeled Washington Post story which said, "Herring, Obenshain in dead heat in Virginia attorney general’s race; recount expected." So, only 1 of the 3 called the race. And plenty of others didn't call it either. So how exactly was I creating a "false narrative" by stating that the race hadn't been called yet?
• "you were supplied with abundant links from reliable sources that used both "state senator" and/or "state Senator"" Like I said in my previous post, it doesn't matter what everyone else's inconsistent naming procedure is because Wikipedia has its own. Which you completely ignored. It says, quite specifically that when a title is used to refer to a specific person, it's capitalised, as in "President Nixon" and "State Senator Deeds". And you still haven't explained why you changed half the instances of person-specific titles to "state senator" and the other half to "state Senator".
• So, you misrepresent my edits completely; you make inaccurate edits and then complain when they are corrected that other editors are not "compromising"; you claim that I "lie" and remove the "only official source" when it's clearly still in the article; you claim that at least 3 sources called the race when in reality only 1 of the 3 had done so and many, many more had not; you ignore the wikipedia policy on jobtitles by posting outside articles that are inconsistent and have nothing to do with what the wikipedia policy says; you ignore talk page posts because they explain how your edits are simply incorrect and you baselessly accuse Muboshgu and I of "tag-teaming". Did I miss anything? Tiller54 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually you missed everything. Or should I just say, once again you misrepresented everything. (sighs). Where have I heard this tired tune before?! But I'll make it incredibly easy for you and the admins. I stand by everything I've posted. My story - unlike yours - has never changed. Not once. I'll continue to answer any admin questions. But I shall no longer feed the troll. You may certainly have the last word. But as you may also soon learn - the last word - is rarely the best one. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You have refused to answer questions and you've offered no evidence for half your claims and with the other half, it's been complete nonsense ("these 3 sources called the race!" - only 1 of them did, plenty of others didn't; "this news source uses "state Senator" and "state senator" interchangeably, therefore Wikipedia should too!"). Your "complaint" has changed in every post you've made, when I've pointed out the inaccuracy of your claims or questioned why you made incorrect edits, you've ignored me and changed the subject. Tiller54 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

107.214.30.15 has some kind of issue with me. A couple of weeks ago he tried to attribute others' edits to me. When I pointed out that none of those edits were made by me, he admitted doing so only to "bait me" into replying. In that same comment, he then falsely accused me of "edit warring" because I removed the same inaccurate and misleading phrase from several different pages (this, which implies that states without gubernatorial term limits actually have them). He then followed me to Virginia Attorney General election, 2013 and began trying to push a version of the page that contained numerous inaccuracies. After asking him not to revert and explaining on the talk page why his version was inaccurate, another IP reverted anyway. I did not revert again, instead asking User:Muboshgu to step in, and he did. This has apparently annoyed 107.214.30.15 because he's now accusing Muboshgu and I of "collaborating" for some reason. Tiller54 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, your self-defense excludes several material facts, Tiller54. But I have no interest in debating with you, especially not on your terms. That's what you want. But if you or another editor would really like a complete recounting of the issues you've addressed - including the many points you've conveniently excluded from your edited narrative - I will provide them here. But I don't think the real nature of this forum is just more back and forth between the two of us. That's counterproductive - and that's the point. The time for solution-based dialogue between us was on the talk pages - where you consistently showed no interest in it. Your refusal to offer anything more than argument - i.e. zero collaboration - is precisely what brought us here. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no interest in debate? Well that's obviously why my explanation of what was wrong with your edits was completely ignored on the article's talk page. As I said above, removing inaccurate information is not the same as refusing to collaborate, particularly when my explanation and another editor's edits go apparently ignored. Tiller54 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I had no interest in debate - because you had no interest in dispute resolution. Without the latter, the former is just a futile exercise. Debate is also futile when you have no interest in collaboration. Which you have also, quite effectively, admitted here. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"no interest in dispute resolution"? That's obviously why I didn't continually revert you but instead invited another editor to contribute and left lengthy messages on the talk page that went completely ignored. Tiller54 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're only digging a deeper hole. Bringing in someone whom you regularly work together with, against other editors, is not "dispute resolution", since the "dispute" was not with that editor - it was with me. So where is the "resolution?" What you call "dispute resolution" in that case, is the textbook definition of what WP calls a violation of WP:TAGTEAM. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Muboshgu and I do not "regularly work together" but we are active on the same topic, so we do edit the same kinds of articles. And no, we absolutely do not work "against other editors". Furthermore, as I've already said, I tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but my lengthy post went completely unanswered. That's why I invited another editor to join, because you were making edits that were obviously inaccurate and did not respond when I explained why they were inaccurate. Accusing us of "tag-teaming" without evidence is very uncivil. Tiller54 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since my name has been brought up here, I feel like I should say something, but this thread is entering "TL;DR" territory, especially since I'm at work. I can simply say that Tiller54 and I do not "regularly work in tandem" or have a "long-time collaboration" that I know of. Simply editing within the same realm of subject matter does not make us "collaborators". I do not "impose [my] will on editors" over anything, I only insist on following the standard operating procedures here of GNG, V, RS, NPOV, CRYSTAL, etc. To suggest that we're conspiring together is laughable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

To feign offense at clear evidence of regular collaboration and cases of working together against other editors is disingenuous. While you are not the subject of this Noticeboard, you risk your own credibility, when evidence to the contrary is so easy to pull from the edit logs. Working in the same areas is not a problem. But tagteaming, or even the recurrent appearance of tagteaming against other editors obviously is. I'm certainly aware of my own experience: here. Not to mention the number of times here that Tiller54 has referenced the "other editor" as though that 2nd person was a completely unknown 3rd party. As for examples where other editors have expressed a similar concern? See here. And isn't this an odd exchange between two people who only casually cross paths working in the same areas, but share no collaborative bond? Also, given the focus of this Noticeboard and what has already been documented - and conceded - here, to have Tiller54 accuse me of incivility, is what is truly laughable. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we both agreed that third-party candidates who are not included in public opinion polling should not be in the infobox is not controversial. It's standard policy, in fact. And then there's the fact that the editor you're quoting, Reallibertyforall, later asked if said third-party candidate should be included in the infobox because he was then being included in polls and was over the threshold of 5%. I agreed with him. Muboshgu did not. How exactly is that "tagteaming", when we don't even agree with each other on the question in hand!?! And yes, we both found something funny. So what? Tiller54 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• "So what?" has been your response to every complaint here: Tiller54, you edit uncollabortively. "So what?" Tiller54, you edit disruptively. "So what?" Tiller54, you repeatedly violate WP policy & guidelines. "So what?" Tiller54, you delete sources - both reliable and even official, that don't conform to your POV. "So what?" Tiller54, you and another editor go beyond mere collaboration, and more than one editor have noticed it - and complained about it. "So what?" Tiller54, editor after editor has complained about you on your own talk page, and all you do is scrub their complaints without changing your behavior. "So what?" Tiller54, you've already been blocked TWICE for this behavior, but yet here you are again - for that same thing - showing that nothing has changed. "So what?". Well, we're done. Left to you, this would go on forever. I refer admins and others to my latest response above. As to the litany of all your other "responses", e.g. "excuses", there's only one appropriate answer: "So what?" 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• "So what?" has been your response to every complaint here." Have you read anything I've written? It's not "uncollabortive" to correct something that is wrong and leave a long post on the talk page explaining why it was corrected. It is "uncollabortive" to ignore said talk post completely, as you did. Violate WP policy? You've completely ignored the policy on jobtitles, offering not the policy itself or any articles or categories as evidence but instead posting links to news articles that are completely inconsistent and have nothing to do with the wikipedia style guide as "proof" that your bizarrely inconsistent edits are correct. As I've said over and over again, I have not deleted sources because I don't agree with them. You on the other hand claim that 3 sources on the page "called" the race when only 1 of the 3 did so and countless others refused to do so. You've made baseless accusations about Muboshgu and I and offered as proof that we "tag-team" us talking about something that amused us. You're clearly pursuing some kind of vendetta against me which began when you tried to attribute others' edits to me and then, when I pointed out that none of those edits were made by me, you admitted to doing so only to "bait me" into replying. That you've tried to drag another editor into it as well is ridiculous. Tiller54 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above about troll feeding. But I'll happily answer questions any admins may have. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, you lie about my edits, lie about what sources say, make baseless allegations about me and another editor and have admitted to trying to "bait" me, but I'm the one who's trolling. Utter nonsense. Tiller54 (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Admin please shut this down. This is going nowhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 22 November 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.

HCPUNXKID

Not sure if this is the correct avenue to go down. HCPUNXKID has been making repeated implications that i am a both a "fascist", have an "ultra ideology" and the numerals "88" in my user name signifies "heil hitler" (see diffs) [[193]] [[194]]. These comments started happening after i attempted to help the user by pointing out that the user boxes on his USER profile were potentially at odds with his edits on politically sensitive articles ( Battle of Aleppo (2012–13) - syria ) and that this could be construed as NPOV. Was genuinely trying to help out and after these attacks were made i have attempted a few times to both clarify my original position with HCPUNXKID and asked that he remove these comments (which he will not) [[195]] Johnsy88 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be curious to know how having a particular userbox on one's userpage has anything to do with whether or not a particular edit is POV? John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he means COI. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

my mistake yes it is WP:COI but this isn't the point im getting at. the unnecessary insults are my main concern. Johnsy88 (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I had tried to explain this user above that I have not called him fascist, and that can be confirmed in his talk page. His manipulations and exaggerations of my writings are clear, as he states here that I had call him "fascist" repeatedly (false, not a single time), that I had assured that the 88 in his nick means "Heil Hitler" (false again, I simply stated that in right-wing circles that number is used to mean that, wich is something well-known). I had only made the same thing he had done to me earlier, suggesting that part of his personal page info could be perceived by other users as he has an extreme or ultra ideological position, with the difference that I had never declared that having any type of userbox on your personal page disqualify you to making edits on articles related to that userboxes, as that user above has done (or thats what I & more users -John from Idegon, for example- had perceived). And what is the cherry on the cake is when he says that he was trying to help me!!! If engaging in discussions with users wich had not even talked with you (all this came because this user had a previous argument -one more- with User:Tienouchou (see my talk page), wich posted on my talk page asking for my opinion, wich finally did not give. Despite that, this user posted on my talk page a response to Tienouchou. Then, I post in this user talk page asking him not to engage in discussions with Tienouchou in my talk page, as they have theirs to do that. And it seems that he dont like that, as the next day I found that surprising post about NPOV and my userboxes, when anyone who reads carefully WP rules will learn that NPOV applies to edits on articles, not to personal user pages, something that this user seems to not understand) and denouncing them in the administrators noticeboard is helping someone, I wouldnt like to know what this user would do with people he dont want to help...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have never even looked at HCPUNXKID's userpage. I simply asked a question based on the previous comment. I have not "perceived" anything. I simply asked a question for clarification. John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didnt want to engage you in this ridiculous mess, I simply pointed that you have get the sore point: How could the personal page userboxes disqualify someone to edit an article? Sorry if you felt that I was trying to use you against that user, that wasnt my intention in any case.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for administrator action here, however...

HCPUNXKID - Reviewing those two edits, I would have interpreted those comments in exactly the same manner as Johnsy88 did. The terminology and emphasis strongly suggested that was your intention. If intentional, that would not be OK - if there are editors pushing extremist views we take it seriously, but throwing unsupported accusations around is considered highly abusive.

You seem to be honestly surprised at that interpretation, so I will assume good faith that this was accidental. You indicate on your userpage that your native language is another one than English; please take this feedback as to the interpretation of those speech / writing patterns as constructive advice so you can avoid doing this again.

Again, I don't think there's any cause for admin action here. If the two of you can step back and avoid each other for a while it might help. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. I agree that your suggestions of a step back will be the best course of action. Johnsy88 (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was not the one starting the argument, so I have no problem not to talk again with that user (that would be marvellous). Furthermore, I would ask that user to abstain next time to "help" me or other users wich had not requested his alleged "help", to avoid this type of confrontations and loss of time, with no gain to no one. Still, I'm sure that I can only been accused of aggresive behaviour, I recognize it, but I never, repeat, never had called that user "fascist", and thats something easily demonstrable reviewing my comments. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

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 seeking help with User:AfricaTanz for soapboxing, loading articles with content only tangentially pertinent to them (and then in a prescriptive, agenda-laden way), and for refusing categorically to engage with anyone who tries to speak with him.

He has persisted in using articles on LGBT rights in a set of at least thirteen African nations as a forum for soapboxing. The user has dropped large blocks of identical text into these articles, almost entirely addressing international agreements that often don't even mention the country in question at all, with the implication being that each country in question is supposed to be abiding by these agreements. This intent is made manifest by such section headings as "Ghana's obligations under international law and treaties".

Over time (this has now been going on for over a year), several of us have removed this content and attempted numerous times to reason with AfricaTanz. I suggested, for example, that the material could go in one place and that each of the articles could make reference to it to the extent it could be given relevance to each country. His response has been to ban us from his Talk page, to refuse to respond to any of the points we make, and to attack us in edit summaries.

The issue went to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_53#LGBT_rights dispute resolution and AfricaTanz declined to participate in any way. At the time, User:TransporterMan suggested we could go to Rfc/U or here. Since AfricaTanz declines to participate and won't listen to anybody, and since Rfc/U has no enforcement power, I didn't see any value in seeking help there. Therefore, I've come here.

Most of the pertinent facts and links to related discussions are at the DR Noticeboard archive linked above. Recent activities can be seen in the histories of LGBT rights in Senegal and LGBT rights in Ghana (example diffs: [196] and [197]).

I see that User:AfricaTanz, who until the last time I looked had an "on vacation" notice that ended earlier this month, now has one that started yesterday and ends in May. Yet he's editing today. For what it's worth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for LGBT rights in Ghana, it seems that AfricaTanz is edit-warring to include this material. I'd suggest this, together with the contributors apparent refusal to discuss the matter in the past, may well be grounds for a block, at least until AfricaTanz agrees to participate in discussions over the issue. Engaging appropriately in discussions over disputed material is a necessary part of being a Wikipedia contributor, and AfricaTanz needs to show willing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The material AfricaTanz is reinserting into LGBT rights in Ghana and other articles was already the subject of an RFC at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law. The consensus was that the material is original research, a novel synthesis, and/or not directly relevant to country-specific articles. To date all attempts to engage AfricaTanz in discussion about this material have been unsuccessful: messages posted on his user talk page are immediately removed, sometimes followed by a statement that the poster is now "banned" from his page, and discussions on project or article talk pages are likewise either ignored or boycotted. I'm at a loss as to what else can be done to get this user to start editing collaboratively rather than combatively. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue may be a little more complex. Back in August 2013, AfricaTanz was removing lots of stuff like this: [198] - which had previously been edit-warred into many articles by a (dynamic) IP editor. What's going on here? bobrayner (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP accounts almost certainly are User:AfricaTanz, before he created an account. The accounts got blocked for the same sort of edit warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)), and IIRC the pages also got semi-protected. This forced whoever was operating the IP accounts to create a named account, and they've continued ever since. The removals in question were apparently precipitated by the RFC; almost immediately after the RFC page got accidentally deleted he started reposting the material. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I agree that the material should go... bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of duplication, here are the search results for AfricaTanz on admin noticeboards. Two ANIs and two AN3 reports. Blocked once for a week as an IP in November 2012 and then once for 48 hours in June 2013 as a registered account. A complaint about AfricaTanz's edits on LGBT rights was filed at DRN in November 2012 but he chose not to respond. In my opinion we're getting close to an indef block if the editor has no intention of joining in discussions. Communication isn't negotiable. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed some problematic content from many of the LGBT-rigts-in-Africa articles. These articles often seem to have other problems - IE. lengthy quotes from legislation and standardised exerpts from country-by-country reposts on human rights &c - which would probably need to be fixed, but we can deal with that later. Now is not the time for scope creep. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So what's the remedy here? I just had another read through all the old links posted upthread, which contain reports of the same behaviour posted by many other users. Despite all these reports, the attempts at personal engagement, an RFC, and several blocks, there's been no change in AfricaTanz's behaviour. I'm led to believe that his editing privileges should be suspended until he demonstrates an understanding of why his behaviour has been disruptive, and agrees to start communicating and working collaboratively. Are we agreed? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my feeling. (I'm realizing I wasn't explicit in my intro about the remedy I was seeking, but that was it.) I feel quite confident in what appears to the mutual consensus that has developed among a greater group here and elsewhere that AfricaTanz makes a lot of questionable contributions, that we have been correct in challenging and reverting them, that he has subjected us to bouts of incivility, and that we are frustrated by our failure thus far to prevent repetition of this cycle or get any cooperation from AfricaTanz in our attempts to do so. I believe that through a variety of channels we've more than amply justified an indefinite block at least until AfricaTanz joins us for constructive discussions leading to a mutually satisfactory understanding of the parameters. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(crickets) —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Has AfricaTanz done any worthwhile editing in other areas? If so, and if AfricaTanz can start communicating (obviously they've used their talkpage for other stuff in the past), I would suggest a topic ban first. I realise we've all got our pitchforks and torches ready, but if there's potential for productive work on other topics, I'd like to offer that chance. Of course, if they don't even comment, or if a topic ban were broken, go directly to Jail and do not pass Go. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. He's gotten into edit wars regarding non-LGBT African topics before, which he persisted in prosecuting until multiple dispute resolution measures showed unanimous opposition to his edits. Looking at his recent contributions, I see some further minor revert battles and incivility regarding articles for airports and for the Indian subcontinent, though without further investigation I can't say who's in the right. Any topic ban would need to cover at the very least both African and LGBT topics. Psychonaut (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of references by User:AfricaTanz

The user is constantly removing references from the article Chittagong. In this edit he removed two references from the article after which I left a note in his talk page. But the user continues to do so with the latest one being this where he removed 3 references. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No time to check it all now, but I see we have a complaint about him at the top of this page, there is [199] and a few others at [200]. Loads of stuff at this talk page. I also note that when he was given this templated warning in May, AfricaTanz changed the section heading to accuse the editor of posing as an Administrator.[201] He doesn't seem to like warnings, he's banned several editors from his talk page. He's had one block in June for edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty clear disruptive editing. I think the community should consider the topic ban as noted above and get stricter from there. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the early-November thread about AfricaTanz there was a proposal for indefinite block until the user will join in discussions. Trying to impose an LGBT topic ban on somebody who won't talk about anything may not be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block

Per the two discussions above. Indefinite of course means until it is clear that the editor's behavior is going to change, so an indefinite block can be removed quickly. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support; I had hoped that a topic ban could be a good compromise but that does not look viable now. bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Given the complete refusal by AfricaTanz to even respond here, I don't see we have any choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Due to the communication issue. If the editor seems willing to talk, we can reconsider this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my report above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per the discussions above. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:59, 21 November 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.

Ivan Volodin

There is a normal discussion over a certain matter at WT:FOOTY; Ivan Volodin (talk · contribs) insists on adding this to the bottom of the discussion, it is basically his own personal summary of what he feels are the pros and cons of various possible arguments i.e. pure OR/SYNTH. Rather than helping, I feel it hinders. I have tried to discuss the matter with him but he is having none of it - I have already removed it twice and he has restored it every time. Further input appreciated. GiantSnowman 22:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Brief comment: 1) The discussion was started by myself, so there had been no "normal discussion" prior to that. 2) It is not what I feel are pros and cons, but a fair summary of four discussions that had been held elsewhere, as I explained when starting the new discussion. This is purely for the purpose of not repeating the same arguments but trying to build on previous discussions. 3) GiantSnowman may feel that it hinders, and if this feeling is shared by others - fine. But deleting the content straight away (and not after trying to discuss it) is clearly wrong. 4) The way GiantSnowman " tried to discuss the matter" can be seen on the page in question and on my talk page - this is not "discussion", in my opinion, it is an attempt to impose an opinion on the basis of alleged better understanding of how WP functions. My understanding had been that anyone who knows well enough how WP functions would not behave in that way. Ivan Volodin (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So there has been no "normal discussion" but there have been (at least!) four previous discussions you took your info from? Mmkay. Who states that it is a "fair summary" of said previous discussions? You? Mmkay. I removed the content per WP:BOLD; you should not have restored it per WP:BRD. Forgive me for thinking I know a bit more about how discussions should operate than an editor with less than 500 edits... GiantSnowman 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC

Have no idea what mmkay means, but yes, there were discussions last year, which brought no result, and I see no problem with summing them up. The way you put it gives an impression as if I joined a pre-existing discussion and disrupted it with my additions, which is simply against the truth. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you challenge the fairness of the summary, feel free to edit particular passages. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL. First, these rules are intended to apply to articles, not discussion pages (unlike articles, on talk pages each user signs his contribution and owns it, unless it is abusive, insulting etc). Second, BOLD, as described at WP:BRD says No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are, and mine was at least a genuine attempt to a positive contribution. The same rule says Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement.. Your edit was not an improvement (from the point of view of my intention to start a reasoned debate not from scratch, but from where it ended last time), but I tried to accomodate your concern on "not a vote", rather than revert it, as I would be entitled to under WP:BRD. The same rule encourages to discuss things, something that you started only after you had deleted my content. P.S. I have been mostly active in the Russian Wikipedia where I started about the same time as you started here, and where I have 5000+ edits and ca.600 new articles, and a good experience of participating in policy discussions. Your comments alluding to your vast experience vs. my small experience border on violating WP:PERSONAL. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not quite see the problem. I would suggest that Ivan Volodin adds his personal edit summary in a hidden block. Would it be a soultion acceptable for all parties?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to provide such a summary, especially as he has !voted in the discussion, as the summary is clearly baised. It also assumes the other participants are idiots who cannot think things through for themselves. If IV wants to provide that information then add it to his sandbox and link there - do not include it in the discussion itself. You will note the content has since been removed by another editor. GiantSnowman 12:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As GS said, there is no need for that summary and the summary can in no way be "proven" to be unbiased. Just take a look at his first post were he states "a strong numerical majority in favour of scenarios" which I failed to see in those discussions and the current voting is 8-2 in favour of not including these scenarios, so he is clearly biased (so am I). If he wanted to he could have made a bulleted list to the earlier discussion to let people know where they are and then let the other editors read them themselves if they wanted to. QED237 (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just saw he mentioned three discussions in the prose, so he has mentioned them, and editors could read them on their own and build their own mind after that.QED237 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are so many biased things posted at the talk pages around Wikipedia, that I do not see how this one, coming from a relatively new editor, would be sanctionable. He mentioned that he is mainly active in the Russian Wikipedia, and I just know from my own experience (I have 80K edits there) that the notion of consensus is interpreted there completely differently than in the English Wikipedia, and the Russian Wikipedia is just one big battlefield. I just suggest that we close this for the time being. If problems persist, we can always return to the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please feel free to discuss with the matter and explain that ru.wiki and en.wiki work differently. I doubt he will listen to me anymore. GiantSnowman 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. However, from what I see, he stopped adding the piece and went to more constructive discussions. If problems reappear, feel free to ping me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick note- OR and SYNTH are article contents policy, not talk page or project page policy. Whether the summary was appropriate or not and responses are a separate matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OwenX

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 want to report an incident with OwenX. I was attempting to make some changes to page for 1.800.Vending to take care of some misinformation and clarify some things. I am not a Wikipedia editor and I was mistaken in my approach to doing this. However, OwenX was altogether unhelpful, rude and accusatory, assuming from the start that I was trying to edit the page with negative intent. You can see the exchange here, User talk:23.30.60.249, in which he accuses me of several misdeeds including "corporate cronyism", "vandalism" and others. I would like to request that a formal complaint be filed against him. I'm a firm believer in Wikipedia's mission, which I understand to be to provide correct information to the public. This can't be done with users like OwenX refusing to help make clearly logical changes to pages that need them because of some sort of vendetta. 23.30.60.249 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I see plenty of COI, possible group use of an account and definite POV on the talk page referenced. Here I see bad faith. Can anyone say boomerang? John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Boomerang! The talk page is pretty clear that COI editing is going on. The ip editor needs to read WP:COI. The sourcing could be cleaned up a little but if think OwenX is on the right path. JodyB _talk 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think OwenX did a great job on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:Mpratt10 is a sock for this account as well. CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, I'm inclined to assume good faith on this one. Ms. Pratt is an inexperienced editor, and has likely forgotten to log in, or may not realize that logging in makes any difference. Her choice of name and pattern of editing do not exhibit any attempt to obfuscate her identity, nor has she denied that the two users are one and the same. I think education, along the line Drmies is doing, is called for in this case, rather than admonition. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 21 November 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.

SPA, POV-pushing IP being disruptive at Bukharan Jews

Special:Contributions/24.12.209.241

A POV-pushing IP has refused to heed the relevant discussions on the article Talk page, ignored WP:RS and WP:NOR in repeatedly reposting unsourced or unreliably sourced material to the article. The IP is also an SPA.

Here is a link to the trimmed version of the Background section at issue.

To start with, contrasting the following two sub-standard paragraphs is informative. This completely WP:OR unsourced paragraph (current)

The Bukharan Jews of Central Asia were essentially cut off from the rest of the Jewish worldfor more than 2,500 years but somehow managed to survive and preserve their Israeliteidentity and heritage in the face of tremendous odds. They are considered one of the oldestethno-religious groups of Central Asia and over the years they have developed their own distinct culture. Throughout the years, Jews from other Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran,Yemen, Syria, and Morocco migrated into Central Asia (usually by taking the Silk Road).

used to replace the following paragraph (obviously, also also WP:OR that contains the above paragraph) that I had removed:

The Bukharan Jews of Central Asia were essentially cut off from the rest of the Jewish worldfor more than 2,500 years but somehow managed to survive and preserve their Israeliteidentity and heritage in the face of tremendous odds. They are considered one of the oldestethno-religious groups of Central Asia and over the years they have developed their own distinct culture. Throughout the years, Jews from other Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran,Yemen, Syria, and Morocco migrated into Central Asia (usually by taking the Silk Road), as did Jews who were exiled from Spain during the expulsion[citation needed]; all these joined the Central Asian Jewish community and were later collectively known as Bukharan Jews. In Central Asia, the Bukharan Jewish community survived for centuries, despite being subject to many conquering influences and much persecution.

Amotz Asa-El does not seem to be a reliable source for history of this sort, having apparently had to self-publish a book on the topic of the essay he wrote that is included in the encyclopedia in question. The essay, “The Lost Tribes of Israel”, starts on p. 78, with the following sentence on p.84: “The Jews of Bukhara, in today’s Uzbekistan, have been speculated as hailing from the tribe of Issachar because the name Issachcaroff is common among them”.

Even in that sentence there is no mention of a “tradition”, let alone and “ancient tradition”, only on mere speculation regarding a name.

This website is an even more patently unreliable source [202].

Note that whereas the IP has attempted to distinguish Ashkenazi from Bukharian Jews on my Talk page User_talk:Ubikwit#Bukharan_Jews so as to exclude the former from the later on a rationale apparently based on ethnicity, the earlier paragraph states that all the Jews in Central Asia were “collectively known as Bukharan Jews”. That is to say, the IP removed the content tagged "citation needed 2009" and the content that corresponded to the inclusive version of Bukharan Jews:

all these joined the Central Asian Jewish community and were later collectively known as Bukharan Jews

One apparently reliable source for demographics and background material contains a short section that touches on Bukharan Jews, which I used in the revised text I posted: p. 75 (a total of 3 paragraphs). The IP refuted that data (see edit summar here) on the basis of his personal convictions, apparently.

Relevant sections of the article Talk page include: Talk:Bukharan_Jews#.22Bukharan.22_vs_.22Bukharian.22 Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Not_lost_tribes. Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Bukharan_vs._Bukharian_again Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Sourcing
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One further statement by the IP should be presented, another one from an edit summary[203]

Please don't rewrite our history. Thanks.The 30k includes Russian Ashkenazi Jews, irrelevant.

The sections of the Talk page where the related issue of "Bukharian vs Bukharan" has been discussed, but there is another section with a discussion of Ashkenazi vs Bukharian Talk:Bukharan_Jews#Surnames_of_alleg.C3.A8dly_Bukhar.5Bi.5Dan_Jews.

So aside from the blatant unsourced WP:OR POV-pushing text composed by the IP, there may be a content issue related to demographics, but that would seem to have been settled in a manner such as to treat Jews in Central Asia inclusively, using the name Bukharan to refer to all. As defined in the lead, Bukharan Jews are Jews from Central Asia who speak Bukhori, a dialect of the Tajik-Persian language. And the last paragraph (also unsourced) of the Background section names places outside of Bukhara as well. In other words, not only does the IP's exclusion of Ashkenazi Jews that have moved to Central Asia contradict the reliably-sourced statement regarding a population of "30-70,000", it also appears to contradict the content of text of the lead and text added in his own edit. Moreover, if one were to exclude the "Ashkenazi Jews from Russia" included in the reliably published figure of 30-70,000, the number would be less, not more. I don't think one could ask for a clearer example of unsourced POV-pushing.

In any case, according to the above-quoted edit summary, it is clear that the IP identifies as 'Bukharian', and is advocating a POV aligned with their personal convictions, not on the basis of statement from reliably published sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid this sounds like a content dispute, and you have to use appropriate dispute resolution venues.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the IP is at 4RR and I left a tacit warning on their Talk page.  ::Wouldn't policies like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:SOAPBOX, IDIDNTHEARTHAT apply?

1. The IP, based on their personal convictions, has explicitly refuted and deleted the information from what appears to be the most reliable source for demographics[204].
2. The IP has misrepresented the statement from another source of questionable reliability in relation to speculation of a connection to lost tribes. I've read one academic study of the topic and am awaiting delivery of another. I have seen no indications of a "tradition", so the term "speculated" in the source in question would be the most one could say if it were attributed. I could raise the issue of that article and statement at RS/N, but the IP doesn't engage on the Talk page and appears not to have read it.

I would assume that a content dispute would involve disagreement regarding sources, but the IP has added paragraphs of text that aren't sourced, while deleting sourced material at the same time. Am I missing something where that doesn't cross the line into a behavioral issue? The IP has clearly indicated an antipathy toward Jewish immigrants from Russia, but reliable sources treat them inclusively as 'Bukharan Jews'. Such editing behavior seems to clearly indicate that the IP is pushing a POV and advocating a political agenda.

I think that the IP doesn't understand some policies, and therefore a short block or topic ban might provide impetus to the IP to study policy and come up with some sources (in English), would be in order to maintain NPOV in the article.

To sum up, I don't see how posting unsourced POV content while deleting sourced material can be reduced solely to a content dispute, because such editing does not conform to the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. It therefore seems that this should be handled as an administrative task at this board, with the simple aim of ensuring that the IP (new SPA account) follows those policies, and not a matter for endless haranguing about elsewhere to no effect. I m here to produce a little content, not engage in administrative tasks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On more easy to present WP:TE misrepresentation of sources by the IP is as follows. The sentence of the source reads

Some ancient Jewish texts claim that during the reign of King David, in the 10th century B.C., Jews were already travelling to Central Asia as traders.

I edited the sentence to include the underlined terms "Jewish" and "Jews", as it is a POV-pushing misrepresentation of the source otherwise. No texts other than Jewish texts are mentioned in the source, and the Jews making their way to Central Asia are described as "Jews", not "Israelites". There are no other ancient texts, such as Greek, Roman or Assyrian mentioned that would add credence to the tradition; moreover, once Israel was destroyed and conquered, Jews were no longer Israelites (which appears to be misleading and perhaps anachronistic here). On articles related to "lost tribes" there is a pattern trying to misrepresent a religious POV as historical reality through misrepresenting sources in this manner. The source authored by a professor at Columbia is accurate, and should not be misappropriated to misrepresent what it says in order to advocate a religious POV on Wikipedia.

Combined with the opposite trajectory of a source (less reliable) in a manner that potrays "speculated" as an "anncient tradition", the POV pushing agenda is obvious and cannot be ignored.

I believe that such editing conduct falls under WP:TE, and is a conduct issue, not a content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR does not apply, since the reverts were not done in one day. I agree though that the behavior of the IP was not constructive, and that they should have been engaged in the talk page discussion. However, given that the page is protected, the IP was warned by several users and has no possibility to edit the page, I do not think any administrative actions are necessary. ANI is clearly not a place to discuss whether the added paragraph is POV or OR or whatever. If the reverts continue after the page gets unblocked, please come here and just mention that the reverts continue. I am sure swift action will be undertaken.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've opened a thread at RS/N requesting input on two of the statements at issue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Ubikwit, I just wanted to echo what you are seeing. I was working with categories based on descent and discovered that there were several instances where a category like X Jews (X being a people of a country) was changed to Ashkenazi Jews in Y or Sephardic Jews in Z, basically claiming that all people of Jewish descent in a specific country were of the same ethnicity. In a modern, mobile, migratory world of the 21st century, one can no longer assume that all individuals of Jewish descent living within a country's borders have ancestry from the same part of the world. So, this seems to be an occurrence for a number of Jewish-related categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks for the info, Liz. There would seem to be a little irony in the scenario of an individual that has apparently migrated to the USA making such strident remarks. The relationship of ethnicity to Judaism also seems to be an issue with some issues for some people. Here, though, I think that since Russian Jews are reported to have been migrating to the area in question since the late 19th century, if they speak the language referred to in the lead of the article and don't sequester themselves as a separate community, there would seem to be no grounds to treat them as such (and no RS seems to do so). That is not to say that the history needs to obfuscated, but it is somewhat difficult to ascertain the crux of some of the claims being made. It may have an anti-colonial (anti-Russian?) aspect, aside from genetics, etc.

I am an expat living in Japan where I have encountered strange stories about lost tribes and Nestorianism, and there is a colonial dimension to the deployment of lost tribes claims of descent. There is a definite political dimension (even subversive) to the promulgation of such blatant fabrications, but the parameters are somewhat reversed in this case. Here, it seems that the IP is attempting to use the lost tribes' claim to anchor one aspect of a distinct identity separate from the Russian Jews, whom he may consider to be colonizers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, Ubikwit, because someone might archive this discussion at any moment, it's fascinating how many different religious groups claim ancestry to the lost tribes, particularly when Christian groups try to anchor their lineage in some, uh, "creative" understanding of the Jewish diaspora. Sounds like a great idea for a book.

Not sure if you want to jump into this but right now, at WP:JUDAISM, there's an active debate about whether 21st century Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews can be classified as being "Asian" because hundreds (or a thousand?) years ago, their ancestors lived in the Middle East. Ethnicity is a hot button issue because for some folks, it's almost ideological and involves the identity of an individual or group which can be seen to define them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

BANNED

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.

---

Block user:GreekAlphabeta it is banned sock, see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Greek_Alphabeta 5.157.80.91 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked; thank you. Why would an admin say "this is definitely a sock of a banned user" without blocking the sock? Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the IP starting the previous thread (165.254.183.37) was blocked as a proxy. The plot thickens. Favonian (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe I was the one who misunderstood. Future Perfect at Sunrise, did I misunderstand what you meant in the previous thread? Please feel free to unblock GreekAlphabeta immediately if I misinterpreted your words. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, GreekAlphabeta was almost certainly not a sock of the banned user (Wikinger). They just happpened to raise an issue again that Wikinger used to obsess about some years ago. But the IPs, both in that other thread and here, are the banned user. It's an old favourite game of his, trying to incriminate other people and getting them blocked as allegedly his own socks. Next thing he'll probably start creating spoof lookalike accounts with variations of the GreekAlphabeta name, trying to cheat us into blocking GreekAlphabeta as a sockmaster. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Nyttend, you are free of blame for misunderstanding that old thread; that little shit faked my posting [205]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 21 November 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.

Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest

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.

---

• Eritrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skypernow1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

I have recently discovered activities that could be potential conflict of interest (COI).

There is specifically one user named user:Middayexpress who have been engaged in various reverts of articles. The most obvious one is the country article of Eritrea. This user has too much influence on this page. The user Middayexpress is the user (active user) with most edits on the Eritrea page. [206]

It seems to me that contributions cannot be made on the “Eritrea” article without this users permission, it all depends on wheatear this user likes the contribution or not. I don’t know if this user has personal interest of this particular page. At first tried to edit the article without an account which I discovered to be problematic and almost impossible for a period of time.

There seems to exist a systematic approach from this user to revert contributions, not always talking about them in the articles talk page. The user Middayexpress also seem to neglect many contributors’ sources too primarily use own sources, in some cases also not using sources to his/her claims.

Users with no experience of Wikipedia fall in the trap of this kind of approach, since they try to change the article but being stopped at the door by this user. Experienced users can have a lot of power and use their advantage, by letting new users fall in the trap of the 3rr rule etc.

I have noticed that this user seems to have a relation to an administrator with username: CambridgeBayWeather. Recently this administrator semi-protected the Eritrea page, removing contributions, sources and reverted article to the version of Middayexpress by request from Middayexpress [207].

After a while users continued to contribute to the Eritrea article. But, Once again they where reverted by Middayexpress nor where they motivated by this user. On the 20 November Eritrea article was fully-protected by the same adminstrator "CambridgeBayWeather" and the article was once again reverted to a week old version of Middayexpress by the request of Middayexpress. Leading to all contributions being removed (-2,579)‎ bytes. [208] Here there seems to be exist a lack of neutrality with this both users behavior.

I would want to suggest to unlock the Eritrea article [209], and that more administrator with a neutral approach can be involved in securing to protect the page. I would also suggest that Wikipedia should try to come up with a mechanism to stop users becoming too powerful.

I have notified both users regarding this. I urge admins and experienced users to look at this matter, since this is not an ordinary page but a country page which affects a lot people.

Regards, Skypernow1 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think Middayexpress has an interest in the article, and as Wikipedia editors we all should. To suppose a COI is odd--I doubt that Eritrea has the editor on payroll. I don't see any reason to suspect collusion between Middayexpress and CambridgeBayWeather; the protection was done justifiably to prevent edit warring, particularly with the insertion of unsourced information. As it happens, just a few hours ago I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hiyob346, on something more than just a hunch.

  Oh, you didn't notify Cambridge correctly: you put something on his user page hours ago, which I removed; I notified them on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You linked to this revert but did you notice the edit summary? I removed a copy/paste that had been taken from here. Today I just reverted back to before all this started and protected. @Middayexpress: did ask me to look at the page but he didn't ask for protection on their version. Thanks @Drmies: for the sockpuppet investigation you beat me to it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Eritrea article is a priority page on WikiProject Eritrea. I'm a participant there [210], and project members are encouraged to build it. CambridgeBayWeather got involved after I asked him to have a look at the Eritrea page following some disruptive activity there by a new user/Hiyob346 [211]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Any particular reason for making the same report twice, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest. You also forgot to notify either of us about that report. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As per the above linked sockpuppet report they have Skypernow1 has been blocked by User:Rschen7754. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:45, 21 November 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.

Poking a COI hive

Editors

• User:MeatloafLovah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Createlex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:John Elisington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Articles

• Thane Koi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ProStudioApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joshua Kissi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, so this is a complicated web to untangle but I think it needs some admin attention. The first editor arrived to publish Thane Koi (promptly deleted), an individual with links (in the first page of source search results) to Joshua Kissi and his relative who created the products ProStudioApp (article currently at AFD) and CreateLex. User:Createlex created the articles here for ProStudioApp and Joshua Kissi. User:John Elisington has edited Kissi's article and nothing else. User:MeatloafLovah uploaded images for both articles, promptly added by Createlex to both articles. A basic search for sources (required by the AFD) brings up self-published material linking each to the other.

User:Createlex and User:MeatloafLovah both !voted to keep ProStudioApp at the AFD.

I think a small group of accounts has been established to promote a closely related group of products, friends and family members. I'm not sure if we're dealing with one person with multiple accounts (the editing styles seem similar) or a group of meat-puppets working together. Either way, it's a pretty bad-faith effort and I don't think any of them are here to build an encyclopedia.

Ordinarily I'd take this to WP:SPI but the AFD tag-teaming, image uploads and article creation suggest this needs a more substantive response. Stalwart111 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• My two cents is to include User:BrianLovesResearch and User:ThaneKoi to the mix. I figured it was stale but it's clear there is some definte meat/sock puppetry going on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Reporting to SPI (first) is always a good idea since it makes cleaning up AfD discussions etc. much easier to clean up. Look at the Eritrea link, above: edit warring, COI claims, forum shopping, need for protection, all easier to deal with after a quick CU, with the kind help of NativeForeigner and others. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Baby steps: User:Createlex blocked indefinitely for user name violation/spam account (see www.createlex.com). ProStudioApp deleted as irredeemably spammy (G11). Next up: nominate the Kissi article for deletion, start that SPI, and then see how many are left standing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• I ran a quick check on this as the evidence is rather clear. I'm inclined to say that this is meat. It's  Possible that Createlex and Meatloaf an the same person, as they are in the same region, and there is some similarity. That being said it's clear Elsington is unrelated technically, so that would put him in the Meat or heavy COI camp. It's also not impossible for Create and Meatloaf to be meat and not socks but data is rather ambiguous about it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Courier-Mail

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 admins awake? Reverting the continuous vandalism today at The Courier-Mail is getting pretty tedious and tiresome - no response at WP:RFPP, hence the need to ask here. For those who don't know, it's outright vandalism being done as a joke, to do with a cricket match. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've only had one cup of coffee, and one cup of tea this morning. WilyD 10:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm grateful. I can do something better with my life now. Still, it's one way of upping my edit count. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For that God invented mass rollback. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Think of the people who want to become sysops! A bit of vandalism reversion can't hurt an RfA! 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but wanting to become a sysop can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 21 November 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.

Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation page

There is repeated Vandalism on Allegro Development Corporation. It started with user Iloveyoupromita blanking the whole page. The user is still trying to change it. Could someone watch it and stop the user from vandalizing the page? --Splin--ter21 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There hasn't been any vandalism in the last couple of days. Doesn't seem like a pressing issue. If you want request page protection, you can do that here, but I doubt they would bother. You are within your rights to revert Iloveyoupromita's blanking, but the first thing you should do is ask them why they are doing it. They are, in fact, the page's creator. I don't think administrator intervention is necessary yet. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

• What a puff piece that is/was. Editorial intervention was required. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting revocation of talk page access for User talk:Qlxconsultingservices and hard 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.

---

User talk:Qlxconsultingservices was soft blocked for promo username even though they were promo editing. Now, they are using their talk page for promotion. Also requesting block of User talk:Qualexconsultings which was created by the blocked user. User:Qualexconsultingservices was created after but was blocked for promo editing. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the unequivocal abuse of the talk page, I've blanked it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardblocked both accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 22 November 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.

Legal proceedings

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.

---

Coren search bot detects multiple copyright violations and reports them at user talk pages. However, you have a tendency to revdel them, and all of the users have thier IPs cloaked (as they have a username). I would request that you unmask them and reveal the IPs of copyvio editors, to aid in legal proceedings.Prefectlawyer580 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. IP addresses don't identify people anyway. In any case, this is the wrong place to pursue this issue. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, nope. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What "legal proceedings" would these be? WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed two legal threats by this editor and warned him. freshacconci talk to me 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, suing an Ip is better than suing a random username. Plus, ISPs are required by law to uncloak the user in question; as long as you have a court order.Prefectlawyer580 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Come back with a Norwich Pharmacal Order then. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, he'd need something from US court, but even that seems frivolous. He could file DMCA requests... on content that will have already been removed, and therefore moot to begin with. Anyway, this digital ambulance chaser has been blocked, and rightly so. Resolute 17:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, just an ambulance chaser. Seemed to be looking at who Coren had tagged and warning them. Not representing someone in particular (and I wouldn't hire a lawyer who's spelling and grammar was so bad anyway.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request and removed talk page access, both due to even more legal threats. GiantSnowman 17:51, 22 November 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.

Socketpuppets of Bbtregervdfv

The POV editing socket puppets are back, repeatly making en masse changes from "Taiwan" into "Republic of China" in many articles[212][213], making POV edits about Chiang Kai-shek[214],[215], and vandalize articles by adding "Republic of China" in irrelevant articles. [216],[217].

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bbtregervdfv/Archive.

New socketpuppets:

Saucemotedba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

AINUCENTM5D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Chrt6be3kiVCVBVXCVCV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Shularackfbbvn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Justig1ddsormtkm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Cvrg5bvxcvxcvqqq (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Buglerazedg21dnlole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Fyuisa8vbgsbdv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vcbr4sdcxcxukkueasdv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and more.

He is also using IP addresses 114.27.xx.xx ,118.171.xx.xx.

111.243.0.198 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

65.205.13.26 BLP violations at Talk:Perri "Pebbles" Reid

1)This edit repeatedly restored[218][219][220] despite several warnings,[221][222]^{repeatedly on the talk page} makes contentious claims about two models (sourced to blogs) and a singer (completely unsourced). The editor seems to believe that I should not be removing contentious unsourced/poorly sourced info about living individuals.

2)The editor is also repeatedly restoring unsourced marriages to the article and talk page and an unsourced birth date contrary to the reliably sourced birth date, eventually leading to semi-protection on the article.[223][224][225][226]

3)The editor seems to have previously edited under other IPs[227][228], receiving warnings.[229][230][231] - SummerPhD (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1)I was told it is rude and bad netiquette to edit another's post. I repeatedly asked summerphd to stop. summerphd refused.
Models Tomiko Fraser and Agyness Deyn have both admitted to lying about their ages so there isnt anything contentious or libel about it. Why is mommynoire not acceptable? Dailymail is not a blog. Mariah Carey is the singer and THIS INFORMATION IS NOT UNSOURCED! MC has for years been claiming 1970 as her birthyear but People (magazine) has held firm that she was born in 1969 per her high school records/NY ID. These are not claims they are facts! I got this information from each's respective wikipedia article. Dailymail is on Agyness Deyn's article page as the source, so why isnt it allowed on Pebbles' talkpage ? Mariah Carey's birthyear too is 1969 or 1970 on her article page so how is that contentious and libel ?
1a)I was warned by summerphd only and those warnings mean sh*t. summerphd thinks its owns the article (WP:OWN) It wont accept any other editors contributions. If an admin or an editor who know what they are doing would have told me and explained why I would have stopped restoring my post.
2) Perri Reid's marriages and children are not contentious or libel. If summerphd would give me a second [ as i asked in my edit summary please wait and let me finish] to add a source, or add one itself, we would move forward. Instead it focuses on censoring my edits. So I couldnt event add a source! Then when I did it wasnt good enough. summerphd says artist direct isnt relaible, yet it is used all over wikipedia on musician's pages as sources! So I went to discussion/talkpage, but again summerphd censors. How am I and others editors supposed to see that needs to be sourced and contribute with summerphd censoring it ? Another editor might have the source but wouldnt know since summerphd has bracketed out the content!
2bI didnt get the article semiprotected. summerphd did. summerphd got an admin to lock the page to of course its disputed version instead of a neutral version, which is not fair at all.

carmaker1 tried to edit and was reverted as well.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perri_%22Pebbles%22_Reid&diff=582528486&oldid=582510515
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perri_%22Pebbles%22_Reid&diff=next&oldid=582624304

carmaker pointed out WP:OWN but no one stepped it to tell summerphd to step back.

I took a break for a week as wikipedia advises, did summerphd ? Nope. It continued to revert anyone else's contributions.

On the discussion page I made sections (5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) and asked for summerphd to contribute what it thinks, it never did. .
it was too hellbent on censoring my posts on pebbles' marriages and kids.

3) Lastly, dont try that sh*t. I haven't edited under any other IPs so dont fvck with me.
You always try and distract from the matter at hand; editing the Pebbles Reid article to be the best we are able to get it to be. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The models' sources are debatable, your not sourcing the singer when repeatedly challenged is pretty clear.

2) Do not add contentious material to BLP pages without citing a source. If you have a source, cite it when you add the material. If you intend to find the source later, add the material with the cite when you find it, not before. I did not say artistdirect was not reliable, only that it is a mirror of allmusic, which should be used as the original source.Talk:Perri_"Pebbles"_Reid#Source:_allmusic_vs._artistdirect In fact, that is the source I was using for the birth date you repeatedly removed. When Carmaker1 challenged the reliability of that source, I took it to the RS/N for discussion. The consensus there was that it was reliable, though they identified additional sources for her birth date, which I added to the article[232] over Carmaker1's unsourced claim.Talk:Perri_"Pebbles"_Reid#Source:_allmusic_vs._artistdirect

2b) I did not mean to imply that you asked to have it semi-protected, only that it was semi-protected because of your edit waring: "Protected Perri "Pebbles" Reid: IP edit warring."[233], at my request.

3) I wasn't accusing you of sockpuppetry. If I was, I would have started a sock case. However, 208.250.69.26 traces to PANERA BREAD CO., Siver Springs, MD[234] while 65.205.13.26 in PANERA LLC., Silver Springs, MD[235]. If you aren't one and the same, you should at least have lunch together. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Your sentence makes no sentence. The sources are not debatable. Tomiko Fraser gave the interview to mommynoire, these are her words. There is also a YT clip of her saying the same thing. Agyness Deyn to admitted she lied about her; and this info is from her wikipedia page. Mariah Carey is given as a 3rd example of a disputed age. This is a fact--it is even on her wikipedia page--yet you censored it as contentious. It is contentious, it is from wikipedia! Same thing for Rachel Zoe's and Jessica Chastain 's DOBs! You need to stop calling everythign contentious.
2) I ddint add anything contentious. Her ex husbands George L Smith, LA Reid, Otis Nixon, and current husband Excel Sharieff are not contetntious. You have a problem with it, why I dont know. And maybe if you slowed the f down and let me finish my edit you see the source. But you also interrrupt and revert me mid edit.
2b)My edit warring? Are you crazy. YOU kept reverting. Dont blame me without admitting your role. You did the same thing with others users perriareid and carmaker1.
3)You do realise TLC movie is on vh1 and that is why there is so much interest in Pebbles ? 65.205.13.26 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Authority control

Please check this and other edits by this user. I don't know much about Authority control, but this seems like a wrong edit (although probably well intended). Debresser (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you informed the user about this discussion? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I now have. Thank you for reminding me. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A perfectly valid edit, as the data is now imported from Wikidata. This can be seen by looking at the current version of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Я не владею английским языком в совершенстве, потому пишу на родном руксском языке, извините. Моя правка поставлена под сомнение, как и большинство остальных. Объясню свою точку зрения.

Я являюсь пользователем в Русской Википедии и наибольшее количество правок у меня как пользователя Wikidata. Меня привлекла сторона Authority control, обнаруженная мной именно в English Wikipedia. На каждую статью в Википедии составляется статья в Викидата с указанием стандартного набора свойств, эти свойства собираются на данное понятие из разных Википедий, других источников, чтобы потом использовать эти данные в статьях своей Википедии как значение свойства. В английской Википедии давно существует шаблон Authority control, в полях значений которого были прописаны значения идентификаторов VIAF, LCCN, GND, ISNI. В течение 2013 г. произошло наполнение Викидата практически всеми статьями изо всех Википедий. Свойства, например, Authority control, для многих людей получили запись в соответствующей статье в Викидата. Эти данные значительно шире и богаче отдельной Википедии. Как использовать эту информацию? Подключать значения свойств Викиданных в своей Википедии. Шаблон Authority control переписали из одной строчки с несколькими числами в сложную конструкцию, проверяющую наличие информации по данному идентификатору в этой статье на Викидата. В него также добавили много других идентификаторов. Я захожу в статью в Википедии, смотрю значение шаблона в статье, перехожу в статью в Викидата, проверяю наличие свойств из шаблона в этой статье, функцией Викидата добавляю недостающие свойства-идентификаторы с сайта viaf.org, проверяю правильность и соответствие данных, ставлю источник, потом перехожу в статью из Википедии. Если в ней в полях шаблона прописаны несколько значений, их можно безболезненно убрать, дубль не нужен. Статья станет короче. Это начальная работа в этом направлении. Большинство информации в статье будет прописано в Викидата, а в Википедии будут только ссылки на Викидата не только по АС, но и по Датам рождения-смерти, месту рождения-смерти, профессии, датам правления, образованию, трудам, наградам, организациям, странам, фотографиям, родственникам, сайтам, источникам, ... Ошибок будет меньше. Эта информация в Викидата находится под наблюдением большего количества людей и контролируется соответствующими программами. Я одновременно редактирую статью в Викидата, Википедиях на английском, немецком, русском, итальянском, французском языках, начинаю подключать польский, португальский, чешский языки. Идёт работа не только по Authority control, но и по другим данным. Хотелось бы увидеть в английской Википедии шаблон Freebase, который бы вставлял в статью Википедии идентификатор Freebase из Викидата. Я думаю, что уважаемый пользователь поймёт мои добрые намерения и отменит свою правку в статье, восстановив мою версию статьи. С уважением,--Пробегающий (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I used Google Tranlate on it, and got this:

"Hello ! I do not speak perfect English , because I write in their native language ruksskom , sorry. My editing questioned , like most others. Explain their point of view .

I am a user of Wikipedia in Russian and the greatest number of edits at me as member Wikidata. I was attracted by side Authority control, that I found it in the English Wikipedia. For every article in Wikipedia article compiled Vikidata specifying a standard set of properties, these properties are going on this concept from different Wikipedias and other sources, then to use these data in their Wikipedia articles as the property value. The English Wikipedia has long existed template Authority control, the values ​​in the fields which had been prescribed identity values ​​VIAF, LCCN, GND, ISNI. During 2013 there was filling Vikidata almost all the articles from all Wikipedias . Properties, for example , Authority control, many people have an entry in the relevant article in Vikidata . These data are much broader and richer separate Wikipedia . How to use this information? Connect the values ​​of the properties in its Vikidal Wikipedia . Authority control pattern copied from a single line with a few numbers into a complex structure that checks the availability of information on the identifier in this article on Vikidata . It also added a lot of other identifiers . I go to a Wikipedia article , see the pattern value in the article, in turn Vikidata article , check the availability of properties from the template in this article , add the missing feature Vikidata identifier properties site viaf.org, check the correctness and consistency of data , put the source then turn to the Wikipedia article . If it in the template fields prescribed multiple values, you can safely remove them , take no longer needed. Article becomes shorter. This initial work in this direction. Most of the information in the article is written in the Vikidata , and Wikipedia are only links to Vikidata not only speakers , but also dates of birth , death, place of birth , death , occupation , date of government, education, labor, awards , organizations, countries , photographs , relatives, websites , sources ... Error will be smaller. This information is kept under observation Vikidata more people and controlled by the respective programs. I simultaneously edit the article in Vikidata , Wikipedia in English, German , Russian , Italian, French, begin to connect Polish, Portuguese, Czech. We are working not only for Authority control, but also on other data . I would like to see the English Wikipedia template Freebase, which would be inserted into the Wikipedia entry identifier from Freebase Vikidata . I think my dear user understand the good intentions and cancel your edits in the article, restoring my version of the article. Sincerely,"

2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 18:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is so, then no problem. Thanks for explaining. Or, in Russian: Если так, то нет проблем. Спасибо за объяснение. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty

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 user Alhanuty distorting information from information sources and treats her as he needs it. I think it should be taken certain measures. Here is a concrete example of his actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map He had made the change of Deir Salman and Abbadeh and used this source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/23/us-syria-crisis-oil-idUSBRE9AM03K20131123 And here is his comment to change:"Now Reuters confirms what lothar and sopher99 point ,that rebels captured cities and town in eastern ghouta. But this source States the following:Activists near Damascus said a heavy battle was raging in the eastern suburbs outside the capital between the army and pro-government militias and rebel units, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an al Qaeda affiliate. Rebels are trying to retake the town of Oteiba in order to break a heavy blockade on the opposition-held suburbs in the east that ring the capital. For months Assad's forces have choked off the areas from both food, supplies and weapons. The fighting caused dozens of deaths on both sides, a fighter in the area said."

I think his actions are damaging and distort the correctness of the information. It also cancels the changes that other useres who point him at his mistake.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wo,wo,wo,listen many editors are using un neutral sources from both sides,secondly editor sopher has brought a source saying that the cities are rebel controlled,and Reuters reported about an offensive in the area,so the Reuter source could have possibly,confirm the status that the cities are contested al least,but I am amazed that all pro-Assad users who bring unneutral sources and without even a confirm by a neutral report,are not reported and me who did an edit and even didn't edit war,was reported.Alhanuty (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And editors lothar and sopher99 made the edit,and I just found a neutral source confirming something about the cities,and you have a lot of editors,who are biased to Assad ,who are vandalizing the map,and I see that issue more concerning because there is many of them,and I don't find this issue concerning,and I am going to leave the map at the last edit that he edited on,so no action neededAlhanuty (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC) And wait a second,this account was just found yesterday,and why he would this person,just file on me,as if he knows me we'llAlhanuty (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have simply noticed a mistake and you have not reacted when to you it has specified. And about which you have mentioned the source resulted earlier not authentic as is based on messages from Twitter Yalla Souriya. And it about oppositional, and does not mention source Reuters specified there.And I have no anything against you personally. Simply it is not necessary to deform data from sources.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC) You are a sockpuppet of someone,and I have filed a report against you Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 23 November 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.