Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Persistent edit stalking

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [1] (newly created by me)
• [2]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] (newly created by me)
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17] (newly created by another editor)
• [18]
• [19] (diff added 18:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC))

and most recently, today: [20]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Richard_Wagner — No infobox and following discussions. In this case the wishes of the principle author Smerus were not respected by Gerda Arendt and Pigsonthewing. There are many other examples, but this was recent. It was provocative because of the high standard of this article, DYKs, the Wagner anniversary etc. --Kleinzach 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda would be a bit trickier, as our interests overlap quite a bit - I've been doing quite a lot of work lately in expanding Bach cantata articles, and as she too has been working in this area, we already share authorship on a few of them (for example both of us contributed to BWV 39, recently on the main page). Your larger point about infoboxes, though, I think we might agree on. Andy has objected strongly to that reasoning, which has been part of the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on board with the notion that the principle author should be accorded this latitude. In fact, as I was formulating my response, I started with the notion that the answer was generally yes, but I didn't agree on the infobox, but as I considered other examples, I began to reject them. Maybe there are some examples, but none come to mind. One of the aspects of Wikipedia that is useful to readers, is that they know what to expect—there will be a lede, there will be references, there will be sections, it will be written in a certain style (not a first narrative, for example). While I wouldn't expect an article on a Bach Cantata to follow the same cookie cutter style as an article on a member of the 1927 Yankees, I would expect some similarity between structures of articles in the same category. Maybe we are not yet ready to resolve the infobox wars, but leaving the decision to the principle author is not a step in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've interacted with Nikkimaria in the past and I can say from experience that although she seems to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, the zeal with which she accomplishes her missions can go over the top at times. Indeed her block log shows that the line between zeal and combativeness have become blurred for her a number of times in the past. While passion is an important part of what makes good editors great, if the same passion is directed into a negative channel by one of our trusted mop-wielders then the results can be quite unsettling for us mere mortals. Because this isn't the first (or even second) time that this issue of over-the-top passion has become an issue for Nikkimaria, I wonder whether something more formal than her promise to stop editing only those articles that Pigsonthewing has written would be a good idea. Nikkimaria is a valuable contributor here and it would be a shame to see her further tarred by this issue. I'd recommend that she avoid watching Pigsonthewings' edits altogether. There are so many more positive ways that an editor can contribute to Wikipedia and Nikkimaria surely has the passion to make great improvements elsewhere on the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this or an RFC/u re Nikki coming weeks ago and divorced myself from the inevitable wiki mess. But Andy posted on my talk and mentioned me above, so I will comment. Agreeing to avoid Andy is a start, but what about Gerda Arendt, and your infobox warring in general? Let's not forget your teamed edit warring over an entry in Franz Kafka's infobox, not mention numerous other articles that had infoboxes. Nikki clearly has an excessive zeal for infoboxes and IMHO should be banned from editing them until she learns that infoboxes serve a valid purpose and many, if not most, users, like them. That an admin is doing this is even more troubling. With that said, I again divorce myself from these proceedings. PumpkinSky talk 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: Thank you, everyone, for taking this concern seriously. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh without a doubt this is very serious Bearian, and I never meant to be dismissive of the situation. My own personal choice however is to "fix" things, rather than just toss them out. I think it's very VERY important to understand that .. for lack of a better word .. "stalking another contributor's edits" should be completely unacceptable. And by that I mean in the sense that any attempts to make another editor's time on wiki unpleasant should be quickly stopped. There are and have been accounts which were primarily disruptive, and to research those things is always acceptable. Now, rather than "demand" apologies, or some sort of submissive "I will comply" - I tend to favor a "how do we move forward in a way that's productive to the project" approach. (and I assume everyone here feels that moving forward in productive ways is a good thing). Nikki has offered one step in the right direction here in agreeing to avoid Andy's articles - good! The issue as far as Gerda may be a bit more complicated however. Since both edit in the same topic area (classical music), then they will obviously cross paths. From what I've seen there have been honest attempts on both sides to find a common ground, all in good faith. My suggestion would be that whoever gets to working on an article first be given the latitude to create or improve the article without any harassment. I have some further thoughts developing at the moment, but it may take some time for me to flesh them out. Either way, I think it's imperative that Nikkimaria stop researching what other editors are working on, and going to those pages to impose a particular preference. Nikki has done some amazing work from DYK to FA, and I'd hate to lose that. With that I will leave further commentary to the rest of the community. — Ched :  ?  00:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been called to this scene. I assume in good faith that you, Nikkimaria, are as sincerely interested in Bach's works is as I am. However, I don't understand why you needed to change almost every infobox for them BEFORE the talk about the template, {{infobox Bach composition}}, came to a conclusion, sometimes just hiding three lines of a list, sometimes (but not lately any more, thank you) doing so using {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} which I don't accept as a compromise for articles I feel responsible for, as explained on your talk. I would like to get the planned article on Baroque instuments to Main space first and THEN adjust the infoboxes. (No reader has been hurt so far by an abbreviation he doesn't understand.) I trust that we can work it out, confessing that I sometimes thought that a series of reverts was a waste of time, - for those who want to understand what I mean, have a look at history and talk of Mass in B minor structure (a work in progress). With less assuming good faith, it might have looked a lot like stalking. - I would like you and others to show more good faith toward Andy whom I haven't seen "pushing" recently (see the above mentioned The Rite of Spring discussion), but helping (!) with {{infobox opera}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on the fringes of this issue with the classical music infobox issue. I don't think an interaction ban is appropriate, nor a general editing ban. HOWEVEr, I do have a proposal: Seems to me that the best solution is to ask that Nikki simply NOT edit infoboxes where they exist and not to remove them where they have been placed by others. She can call actual factual infobox errors to the attention of other editors at the respective article talk pages if she sees them, and I see no reason that she cannot continue to discuss the general issue in appropriate fora (the project pages, for example, but not across a dozen different articles),. Thus, I think that a restriction on Nikki either editing or removing infoboxes would be appropriate, as she appears to have lost perspective on the issue. Nikki, is this something you could live with, at least for a while? Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is a one-sided discussion with all the pro-boxers out in force, and those who have reservations about boxes absent. I only found it by accident. (The common non-specific title Persistent edit stalking minus Nikkimaria’s name serves to obscure the discussion — assembled admins please note).

In my experience, Nikkimaria has been reasonable and considerably less aggressive than Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt. The latter have been developing new infoboxes and applying them to articles without notifying concerned editors. (In this connection, see for example here and here).

I was surprised that Andy Mabbett should make this kind of accusation against Nikkimaria, given that he consistently reverts my own edits (for example: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]], [26], [27]. As I observe WP:1RR and never complain here, I guess I'm an easy target. I am not sure what 'edit stalking' means in a WP context, but I assume it involves watching another editor's contribution list and then jumping in with an edit or reversion. Well, is anyone seriously suggesting that Andy Mabbett doesn't do this? Kleinzach 04:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for what it's worth. Pigsonthewing's behaviour with regard to infoboxes at WP:COMPOSERS has usually added nothing but bad vibes to many talk pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I have noticed editor Nikkimaria's work, it has been very thoughtful and helpful. I think she deserves full backup here. It's Pigsonthewing who is the big Wiki-problem; he's an incredibly disruptive editor who wastes a vast amount of other editors' time through harassment, wiki-lawyering, and forum-shopping. This guy has been banned before, and it's really time now to make it permanent. Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been called aggressive above, and disagree with that as well. Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles other than mine, such as Sparrow Mass, and found the agreement of the principal author. No, I have not added an infobox on Bach, just suggested one. No, I have not even suggested to use one for Talk:Richard Wagner, knowing that the principal authors are against it, I only showed how could look, following an advice of Nikkimaria to have an infobox on the talk page if it was not wanted on the article. The way "vibes" are raised every time something that should be factual and simple (an infobox) is mentioned doesn't cease to surprise me. - What do you think of the compromise that in cases of a known conflict of interests on the topic, changes are not made to the infobox but discussed on the talk? This includes adding one and socalled "cleanup". - This was done for The Rite of Spring, have a look at the ratio of facts and vibes. - If it had been respected for BWV 103 - [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], ... [36]) - we would have wasted less time. Btw, the cantata title translates to "You will weep and wail" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am repeatedly surprised by the passion that this infobox thing arouses in the classical music project. For someone who spends most of his Wikipedia time hanging around middle east disputes, where the fate of nations seems to hang on this or that word, this particular issue seems so, so bland. That said, the agreement achieved in the last major discussion on this seems to me a good one- that you should seek consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox. I have done this occasionally at articles about those extremely esoteric composers who interest me, gotten no feedback whatsoever, and then did what I wanted. The one who has consistently ignored this agreement is Pigsonthewing, who goes about planting infoboxes in articles as though they (the articles,I mean) were the octopus's garden. So I join (without a great deal of enthusiasm) Toccata's and Opus's assessment that it is Pigs, and not Maria, who deserves censure here. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict, - see the above examples, - I think we agree on less passion on the topic, - censuring anybody seems not the right approach to achieve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Your statement that prior consent is needed to add an infobox to some articles (presumably classical music) puzzles me. I read both Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, both of which discuss article by article consensus, but neither mentions that there are different rules for classical music article. I'm not so sure that such special rules are a good idea, but if the community has decided that classical music articles follow different rules than every other articles, shouldn't this be prominently mentioned in the relevant guidelines?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censure is indeed not the correct approach whilst one retains any hope that the contenders in a dispute are amenable to reason and consideration for others. Where one or both (or their partisans) show themselves not thus amenable - and in particular where there is a history of such implacability - what then? I put this question as dispassionately as possible. In this particular instance of pot-and-kettle, my inclination is towards the opinion of Ravpapa (talk). However - Declaration of interest: I have lodged a quite separate - but not entirely spiritually unconnected - complaint about Mr. Mabbett here.--Smerus (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into what the origins of this editorial disagreement is? Its not uncommon for Andy to try and bully his changes through against well-established consensus with wikilawyering in order to avoid actual debate. Don't let him do it. Make him actually make his case and try to achieve consensus.DavidRF (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does that excuse, in any way, an editor following Andy around the project, including making plainly pointy edits to pages he's just created? It's one thing for the classical music project and its various affiliates to go around owning pages that its members were the primary contibutors to (it's not a good thing in any way whatsoever, but at least it's something everyone is used to by now), but it's quite another to go stalking new pages created by the Filthy Outsiders (Andy in particular) and enforcing that group's idiosyncracies on them as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You've completely misrepresented everyone's complaints about Andy. We'd welcome being overruled by "filthy outsiders" (your strawman characterization, not mine) if someone of authority came in and made the ruling. But we play by the rules, we debate for a week or two, we reach a consensus and update the wikiproject style guide and then Andy ignores the consensus and pretends to be unaware of any debate that had occurred. We repeat the debate for another week, reach consensus again and again its ignored. Repeat again, etc. If you get angry and overreact, then Andy uses your overreaction against you. Its infuriating and extremely hard to assume good faith when interacting with him. I don't understand how debate and reaching consensus is considered "owning" while ignoring consensus and refusing to debate is not "owning", although we're used to it by now too. I don't know User:Nikkimaria very well, if she overreacted way too far, then do what you have to do, but don't go around mischaracterizing people's complaints like you've just done. I thought admins at ANI were the supposed to be the voice of reason, but you guys are just as petty and snipey as any other editor.DavidRF (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone's complaints about Andy" are not the issue here. I'm well aware of Andy's history on the project and of the various matters in which his behaviour is considered problematic. But as of right now, he's an editor in good standing on the project, and when he's going around making productive contributions to articles (including writing them from scratch) he should not be expected to have to continually look over his shoulder in case an editor holding a grudge is following him and systematically working to undo him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Convenience break

Comment I see a troubling tendency of editors lining up into "Andy's right" and "Nikkimaria's right" camps. That approach is rarely helpful, and rarely correct. I see a lot of links included; I've just started looking at them,and asking each about them. I've found less than exemplary behavior by both, so far. I see both trying to make the encyclopedia better, both with views on how that should be achieved, but the views clash. In some cases, they are on opposite sides of a debate which the community has failed to resolve, and unfortunately, have chosen to push their particular view if what is right. While it is undoubtedly more work than picking one to smack around, it would be better if we identified the open issues and attempted to resolve them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was the results of looking at some of the edits identified by Andy, and observing some editorial decisions made by Nikkimaria. In some cases I agree, in some cases I did not. In no case did I feel that it was as clear cut as a violation of policy, rather it was an interpretation or a gray are where we differ. I've commented at her talk page, and see no need to revisit it here, partly because I reread Andy's report, and see no mention that he disagreed with any particular edit, the only charge is stalking.

As all know, the charge of stalking, or Wikipedia:WIKIHOUNDING is problematic. A common set of facts showing up at this notice board involves an editor who makes some mistake, is corrected by a second editor, and then the second editor decides it would be prudent to check through other contributions of the first editor to see if there are other issues. That results in editor one observing that editor two is showing up at articles they've never edited before and making quite a few changes in short order. It sure looks like wikihounding. This behavior is not just tolerated, it is encouraged. As an extreme case, when some has enough copyvios, we go through a CCI which involves review of every single edit. In more benign cases, it involves review of many recent edits by some editor, the placing of that editor on their watchlist (which may be automatic), followed by subsequent changes. All acceptable. In other cases, some editor gets upset at another editor, and decide to stalk their every edit, reverting often, commenting acrimoniously, and not always within policy. Our policy notes that one set of actions occurs "with good cause", while the other is prohibited, but doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference. It doesn't sound amenable to a simple metric, and may need the Potter Stewart treatment.

Andy wants to know what we are going to do about it. Step one is to determine if, in fact, the evidence supports the charge.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To pre-empt concerns such as "Our policy ... doesn't provide much guidance on how to tell the difference" I provided a link, above, to a recent Arbcom ruling. Since it clearly wasn't obvious enough, so allow me to quote:

...relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Also, please do not confuse my not commenting on the content of the edits given as agreeing with them; my concern here is stalking, and I deliberately addressed only that. You will note that I have challenged the majority, either by reverting, or on the respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, thanks for the link to the Arbcom ruing. I just reviewed five cases of wikihounding, which weren't very helpful. I missed the link you gave earlier, and will review it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy thanks for the clarification that not commenting on the substance of the edits should not be construed as agreement. I do see disagreement about editing policy and appreciate that those were not brought here, which for review of behavior. I had started a post on how to address some of those editing policies, but it didn't belong here, and then I realized you hadn't raised it. I did not mean to imply that your silence here on those issues was concurrence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed 50 edits of Nikkimaria, those just prior to the filing by Andy. (That is probably not enough, but it is tedious, and if viewed as a useful metric, we should find someone to automate it.) In each edit, I checked to see if Nikkimaria was editing just after Andy, or not. In 2 of the 50 edits, her edit followed his. In 48, it did not. This does not preclude the possibility that there were intervening edits, and she was editing something he had edited. That can be checked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers don't tell the whole story, but here are some counts

Andy identified 22 diffs in the list above in which Nikkimaria edited immediately after Andy. (The list is characterized as examples, so may not be exhaustive.) 22 seems like a lot, and I confess if some editor reverted me 22 times I'd not treat it as coincidence. But it is relevant to look at the count in light of Nikkimaria's contributions. The 22 diffs cover the time range 21 December 2012 to 5 June 2013. If I count correctly (and I did it quickly) Nikkimaria has over 7000 edits in the same time period. That means less than one third of one per cent of Nikkimaria's edits are in that list, which doesn't, on its face, sound like single minded obsession with another editor. It might be useful to have metrics for cases in which wikihounding has been upheld as well as cases in which it has been dismissed, to see if the metric is useful and how this compares. I do not have those numbers, but if a case of wikihounding exists, it will (IMO) have to be on the nature of the edits, not on the counts. I have identified one edit that troubled me, and asked Nikkimaria about it. I'll keep looking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also relevant to look at Andy's count over the same time period. If I counted correctly there are about 9500 edits in the same time period. Which means the 22 edits identified are less than one quarter of one per cent of Andy's edits. This isn't presented as definitive proof, but if editor A targets editor B in violation of policy, I would expect significantly higher percentages.

That would appear to excuse bad behaviour based on good behaviour elsewhere. I don't believe we've ever defined stalking to specifically involve a particular ratio of one editor's contributions in any case. One does not have to devote one's entire wikicareer to following a particular editor for it to be obvious that one has a pattern of following that editor around and making combative edits that have a deleterious effect on community relations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested close

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I've read enough, and seen too many deficiencies on both sides such that I cannot to recommend that Nikkimaria be sanctioned for wikihouding or Andy for provoking. I know it sounds like the easy way out, but it isn't simply that both have flaws—I've searched several of the edits listed by Andy to look for evidence that either has attempted editing101—go to the article talk page to discuss the issue, and came up empty. (Addendum, I reviewed the 21 diffs and see three cases where Andy bought it up on the talk page. I see three other instances of talk page edits, 2 by Andy, one by Nikkimaria, but not related to each other's edits)

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.

I hope an uninvolved admin will close this and urge that they both start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth does that have to do with the fact that she's stalking my edits - and has tacitly acknowledged doing so here and when I raised the matter on her talk page?

Here's where I raised one such staking on an article talk page (she didn't respond): [37]; and another: [38] (which is clearly linked in my fist set of links, above( and another: [39].

But even had I not done so; stalking is prohibited, with few exceptions, that are not applicable here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, did not mention Andy before simply because I know much about this background. The problem with SPB's proposal is that it won't solve anything and we'll see another ANI or RFCU or (yuck) Arbcom case. Something more than a dual trout slapping is needed here.PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkinsky, do you have something specific in mind? While I'm still getting up to speed, and may well not have the understanding that others have in these incidents, I see an editor who thinks that anyone wishing to add an infobox to an article requires a consensus discussion at the talk page if an editor disagrees. I think that's a perversion of the intent of BRD, but maybe I'm wrong. We should have a community discussion to see what the community thinks. The same editor thinks empty parameters in infoboxes should be removed, even though the policy doesn't support that conclusion, so as a community, we should clarify what to do with empty parameters. It also appears that some subset of articles (classical music) has their own special rules appliable to infoboxes, which are not discussed in the logical locations. Let's find out if the community agrees, and decide, one way or the other. Several of the disputed edits are traceable to two editors taking a different position on these issues. It is hard to declare that one, or the other editor is in the wrong, if the policies are silent, conflicting or unclear. Color me naive, but I see two editors, both intent on improving the encyclopedia, who have different views about specific aspects of editing policy, and if we resolve those issue, either the issues will go away (ok, no, I'm not that naive) or we will have clearer policy planks to smack around violators.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How many editors do you see stalking? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm happy to see that there are some cases where you posted on the talk page, as is the desired process. I see that Nikkimaria did not respond, as she should have. As I mentioned, I did not review everyone of the edits you cited. I found some early in the list that had no such notice on the talk page, and some late in the list. If you think I coincidentally stumbled on a misrepresentation subset, feel free to let me know how many of the reverts were followed by talk page discussions. If that is important. However, your point, it seems, is that she engaged in stalking and has tacitly admitted it. I don't see diffs. You have over 9500 edits during this period, so I don't have time to review them all to search. Can you point out what you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that Nikki seems to be stalking Andy and Gerda and that issue is more than just the infobox war issue. I've seen many cases like this in my years and I fear the whole case won't be known unless an AC case is opened. That doesn't mean AC is the only solution. This is what I propose: 1) Nikki and Andy banned from editing, adding, or removing any infobox (that way one side can't say they're being picked on) until an RFC on Infoboxes is concluded, 2) the RFC on Infoboxes runs for 1-3 months and covers scope of their use and what to do if disagreements arise, 3) both of them agree to the outcome of the RFC or said person is banned from them for one year, 4) IMHO Nikki is lucky she hasn't been blocked and/or de-adminned for stalking. Just my 2 cents and keep in mind I know much more about Nikki re Gerda than Nikki re Andy. PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an RfC on infoboxes. There are a number of issues that should be resolved. You stated that the issue is more than infoboxes. What else? I just reviewed every one of the 21 edits listed by Andy and every single one involves the edit of an infobox. Andy raised this at ANI, not as a referendum on infobox edits, but as a claim of stalking. I think that claim is weak, and should be dismissed. Any proposal to ban should be brought up at AN, not ANI, and should be brought up as a new item. We have set, IMO, a bad precedent in some threads of an editor raising one issue, and the community jumping into different areas. I see that as an abuse of process. (Which does not mean I am opposed to boomerang, or using editors other edits to decide upon remedies). If someone wants to propose a ban covering one or both, they should propose it at AN with the relevant diffs. While the one's that Andy listed might be part of that list, and proposal to ban them both ought to be done by another party looking at contributions of both. If someone wants an Arbcom case, they can propose one. That sounds like overkill, as I have yet to see that this is broader than policy disagreements in several narrowly defined areas of infoboxes. Arbcom's remit is behavior, not tweaking editorial policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else here - not even those seeing me as some kind of satan; not even Nikki herself - has said that there is no stalking. The evidence is plain to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are given in my initial post, at the head of this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sphil, you say you would like to see an RFC on infoboxes. I call your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC, an extensive RFC on the subject that took place in 2010. To summarize, there was a clear majority of editors who opposed inclusion of infoboxes in classical music articles, and a strong minority in favor (I was in the minority). The conclusion of the discussion was that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox. I thought that was an eminently fair and reasonable solution to the problem, and I think that if everyone follows that community decision, the problem will be largely solved. If Andy, Maria and Gerda agree to abide by that decision, it seems we can close this whole thing amicably. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an extreme simplification of the outcome of that RfC, and under no circumstances does it excuse an editor systematically stripping infoboxes from pages that another editor has written from scratch. A large part of the debate in question stemmed from the fetishing of Original Authors and not editing in ways that would discourage them from creating content. Stalking someone's new pages and stripping content from them couldn't be a clearer violation of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris, but it's not an over-simlification, it's a gross misrepresentation. (If I'm wrong, Ravpapa will obviously quote the part of the closing remarks which mandate "that editors should post to the talk page before creating an infobox".) Furthermore, many of the examples I give at the top of this section have nothing to do with classical music. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New day, this is (again) too much for me to read. How did we get from stalking to infobox again? - I hope I will live to see the day that the addition of an infobox is considered added (useful, structured, accessible) content and not as "aggressive" or "provoking". - "Did you know ... that infoboxes on Wikipedia are used to extract structured content using machine learning algorithms?" (Yesterday's Main page) - Until that day, I will add one only to my own articles and others where I assume the main author(s) will be happy about it. In other cases, I will only mention it on the talk page - or not at all. I will not revert one nor collapse sections. - If everybody involved did the same, we might get a bit closer to the envisioned day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the outcome of the RFC. Here are the remarks by the closing admin:

Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.

• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion. (my emphasis)
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

and here is the guideline that the admin is referring to:

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. (again, my emphasis) Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about composers' infoboxes and earlier infobox debates.

I understand that to mean that you should discuss on the talk page before adding an infobox. Am I missing something? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's an expression of how the members of one particular project prefer to behave. It has the same status as a paragraph on a single editor's user page. Neither the project nor its members own or control articles they chose to regard as within its scope. This is, though, irrelevant to the issue of stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MOS states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. and that notice above the edit window says Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone (emphasis mine). So this concept that there is a "principal author" and they get to decide whether a given article has a box or not isn't supported by the policy. Looking at the first example provided, Forsbrook Pendant, I see that PotW added the box, Nm removed it -- which is in alignment per bold, and PotW restored it and editing ceased. Which is fine. On that particular article, the box provides no information -- it just repeats what's in a very short article and therefore just strikes me as just clutter. In any event, this whole thread strikes me as PotW doesn't want to discuss on a case by case basis whether given articles have boxes or not. Support close as no admin action appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not required by policy to have to ask permission every time you add an infobox, there's the concept to be bold. - BUT: I still recommend to do so, at least for a while, for reasons of politeness and respect. But that includes politeness and respect towards those who want an uncollapsed infobox - like me - also. (If you look at the history of BWV 103, mentioned above, that doesn't always happen.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My desire for an RfC was not simply to determine whether infobox inclusion in a subset of articles should be handled differently; there are other open issues: how should empty parameters be treated, and what should the rules be for subjective fields. Both of those issues arose in the diffs above, and I have seen the issue of subjective fields causing edits wars elsewhere, so I want an RfC on infoboxes, not an RfC on infoboxes in composer articles. The RfC you linked did not reach conclusions on either of those issues.

Andy notes that the ANI was filed on a stalker issue. I see the discussion drifting to the substance underlying the conflict. I personally think if the underlying issues are resolved, it will make it easier to solve the conflict, but ANI is not the place to debate editorial policy.

Can we return to determining whether Andy has a case, and then we can determine where and how to open an RfC to address the editorial questions?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, NE Ent, it's that another editor is staking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you keep saying that, but I don't see a lot of support for your position. As you pointed out, Arbcom gave some guidance and indicated that a relevant factor includes "whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community". So while you keep posting that I'm missing the point when I focus on the content, I'm doing so because of the ArbCom guidance. I happen to think that the position that infoboxes in certain articles have an exception which isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia:Infobox is unlikely to be sustained by the community, if actually discussed, but I could be wrong. If the community clearly points out that the handling of infoboxes should be consistent everywhere, then the reversion of your edits will be a violation and can be handled appropriately. If the community decides that the treatment should have an exception in the case of one Wikiproject, then it should note that in the guidelines, and you will have to accept the ruling. Whether you are being wikihounded is dependent on whether your edits are viewed as problematic, or whether Nikkimaria's are. At the moment, it isn't clear, and I cannot imagine the community will conclude wikihounding has occurred in such a gray area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see support for my assertion that my edits are being stalked, then you need to re-read the above thread. I have already pointed out to you that you are the only person to have asserted that no stalking has taken place. The viewed as problematic point (disputable in the cases concerned) has several qualifiers in the Arbcom ruling, which you seem to ignore. Your focus on content remains irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. You might point to Bearian, but that editor made an early comment before much of the evidence was reviewed, and hasn't weighed in since. At most, that's two, and that's counting generously. You are the one who linked to the Arbcom guidance which suggests we need to find edits by Nikkimaria that are not supported by policy. I've reviewed every single one of her edits, and do not recall that any were challenged by the community, and if I missed one, we need a pattern, not a single edit. That's the standard you linked to, and it does not support you. Ironically, I may be one of your bigger supporters. I do not like someone reverting the addition of an infobox, and I personally think the burden should be on the editor wanting to remove it, so that's why I'd like to see an RfC—I think it might support you and I will be supporting your position in it. But absent that community decision, we have 22 edits by Nikkimaria out of many thousands, none of which were challenged by the community. As stalking claims go, that's pretty weak tea.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it differently. In how many of the 22 edits listed did you bring the issue to the talk page, and get community support that your edit was appropriate? I can only find a single post of support, that by User:Magioladitis in Talk:Arthur Worsley. Can you point me to the clause in wp:consensus stating that getting a single editor to agree with you equates to community support?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple solution here - will Andy and Nikki agree to avoid each other for the next (amount of time here). From what I see here its clear they are at odds about these boxes. We are talking about just a box....something that if there or not is not harming the project - however there interaction is causing problems. So lets deal with what is more disruptive...the behavior.Moxy (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In most, possibly all cases, Andy chose to add an infobox to an article, and Nikkimaria chose to remove it on the basis that she believes it doesn't belong. If we adopt your simple solution, Andy can add infoboxes wherever he chooses, and she can do nothing about it. Is that your intended solution? Andy gets to decide which articles have infoboxes, and Nikkimaria has no say? (FTR, I do not agree with how Nikkimaria is responding, but I'm not willing to buy in to this extreme measure.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only Andy adding infoboxes - there are many many editors that do just this and a project dedicate to this task. But there is however only one editor following the other correct? They should simply avoid each-other. I take it noone else feels they are being stocked in this manner correct? Moxy (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the time and research you've put into this SPhilbrick - and do want to make that clear. Now, as I read this in pertaining to the original post: Bearian, BWilkins, PumpkinSky, Thumperward, and I have all taken this as a serious situation. So I'm not sure exactly how weak that tea really is. I doubt it was ever intended that this thread be developed into a "info box" discussion, although I can't say I'm surprised that it has. I also understand how you would object to my "outside the box" thinking in regards to a common courtesy of a principle author; and fully understood that it is in ways contrary to WP:OWN, however - it's simply my own approach to a situation, rather than something I thought should be codified. Now, getting back to the stalking issue, I think it's only fair to say that Nikki has said: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward.]". Now perhaps that's not a full admission of anything, but I think it's implied that improvements can be made, and I trust that effort will be made. I also have concerns about this response, but note that both Gerda and Nikki seem willing to continue to work through this without intervention; so I'm inclined to respect that as well. I think Andy has made a good case for his complaint, but I'd like to think that with Nikki's agreement that we could mark this as closed, noted, and archived for future reference if needed. I can't say I'll be surprised if I see the term "info box" further up the road, but I'd also suspect that it would be a very unpleasant experience for MANY editors if/when it happens. I hadn't expected to comment further on this topic, but now I have. Hopefully I can walk away from this now unimpeded. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If I've said anything to suggest I don't think it this is serious, please point it out so I can correct it. I think when two editors with 140K edits between them are at loggerheads, it is serious. When the underlying editorial issues are issues that have been festering for years without resolution, it is serious. However, Andy insists that the issue is narrow - Wikihounding to be precise. It is that charge which is weak tea. I challenge anyone to identify an ANI case where Wikihounding was upheld where the edits in question were a fraction of one per cent of the total edits. And no, Nikkimaria willingness to leave alone any article he has written is not an admission of wikihounding, it is a good faith attempt to resolve a conflict. What exactly, do you think should happen? Are you proposing that Nikkimaria should be blocked? How long, for what reason, and what rationale? We pretend that the purpose of a block is to prevent further harm, but she's already agreed not to edit an article he writes, so what would a block stop, other than the hundreds of good edits she is making even as we type?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak tea? Perhaps I have another language problem. I don't want to waste time in digging up diffs, and Nikkimaria will certainly have good explanations why she showed up at Peter Planyavsky for the first time the same day I installed an infobox (see talk), and on Andreas Scholl right after I reverted the collapsing of one (that I didn't create). - I am interested in an approach for working together better in the future, letting go of the past, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Would Andy and Gerda agree not to add infoboxes to classical music articles, or to any others where they can anticipate that a group of editors already at the article will object? And in return would Nikkimaria agree not to follow Andy's or Gerda's edits, and not to remove infoboxes that they have added? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a positive approach, however any kind of understanding must cover infobox templates as well as articles. The latter is an area where Andy Mabbett and Gerda Arendt have been extremely active— though not Nikkimaria. --Kleinzach 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the impression that we leave the original case more and more. What I did in templates was create one for Bach's compositions (within Classical music from the start), making template Musical composition compatible with it (only because Nikkimaria insisted on not using Bach composition for the Mass in B minor), and help with the wanted one for opera. What Andy did I don't know because I don't follow his edits, but I know that he helped with all three. I don't see problems nor would I call it "extremely active". Back to the original case: with Andy not around, I would simply ask Nikkimaria to avoid edits that can be interpreted as stalking. Peace could be rather easy here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we're talking about the addition of extra fields to boxes. For example, Template:Infobox musical composition which now has 44 fields (31 of them visible). About half of these were added by you [40]. Are you willing to undertake to stop doing this? That would be a big step forward.Kleinzach 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For Andy: "I'll respond to SPhilbrick's questions when I'm able." That goes for other questions as well, please see his talk.

For myself, reply to Slim Virgin: I think my approach (outlined above) covers it, please read. Classical music is against infoboxes for composers. Infoboxes for compositions are used and discussed, an infobox for orchestras was recently developed. I don't think that I EVER added an infobox where I expected a controversy. - Nikkimaria already stopped reverting complete infoboxes (at least mine), but I would appreciate if she would discuss changes rather than making them, see above, diffs of BWV 103, and those are just one example. - My thoughts are more with Andy's health now than with infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy's health, o come on. Andy is a battle hardned troll, if you cant see that, then I dont know what to say. You surely noticed himslef and jack routinly target editor's pages and go through the same old arguments, bit by bit. And this gang tend to swarm. A nice eg of the MO is [41]. But whatever, keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the odd scar myself from locking horns with Andy, but the very prominent banner suddenly posted to the top of his talk page makes me think it would be seemly to put this discussion on hold until he is back in circulation. What is amiss I cannot say, but you don't post banners like that for something minor. Pax? Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, what I'm getting at is that, if this goes to ArbCom – and it has been going on for so long that this seems likely – all parties risk being topic-banned from infobox additions or discussions. So the best thing would be for the three of you (or two if it's mostly Andy and Nikki) to get together and agree a compromise position: I'll stop doing X and you stop doing Y. That's infinitely preferable to having ArbCom decide it for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SV I think this is a sensible suggestion. To begin, I'd like to add to the suggestion that anyone, whether Andy or another editor, cease adding infoboxes as was done here at the time an article is featured on the main page. Editors who curate articles that are featured on the main page have enough to deal with during the stressful days leading up to TFA, (polishing, etc.), and the days after, (clean up, etc.) and should be not subjected to hostile infobox conversations. Thanking our editors for writing featured content would go a long way toward bringing about peace instead of deriding them. My two cents. Victoria (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford

May122013 (talk · contribs) - Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous accounts:
  • Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs)
  • Mr.grantevans (talk · contribs)

For clarification, I have not edited the Rob Ford article or talkpage, I was made aware of this issue via BLP/N.

The facts: in May, Gawker reported that a staffer had seen a video, allegedly of Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, and making homophobic and racist statements. The Toronto Star picked up the story, and two of its reporters saw the same video. Since then, the story has been picked up by approximately every single news outlet there is, been discussed on talk shows (Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Stewart, if my memory is correct), and generally become Kind Of A Big Deal. The article as written at the time of this post is neutral, sourced, and reports factually on what has been said in media outlets.

User:May122013 has tried everything they can to remove this information from the article, including:

• At least a dozen outright removals of the content, all of which were reverted quickly, with multiple edit summaries telling May122013 that there was no consensus for the removal
• Many attempts on the article talk page to remove the content, starting here with an attempt to paint it as unreliable when Gawker and The Star had a minor difference in one thing that was said about the video. Then a claim that the video is a hoax. Then attempts to (mis)use policy to remove it, different attempts at BLP/N to have the material discredited, most recently claiming that Gawker and The Star are primary sources. I could go on but I'm tired of combing through diffs. Just see the user contribs and the talk page. Basically May122013 wants the material out and will use everything and the kitchen sink to try and remove it.
• And has wrapped it all up with accusing me of sockpuppetry, refusing to offer any proof of the accusation, and refusing to retract. (Including an attempt to evade responsibility by saying they only said 'possible', and they suddenly have 'time committments' until June 18 which do not allow them to address the accusation. Which is without merit, by the way. I removed the accusations after telling May122013 twice to do so. An admin has also told May122013 to provide proof or retract.)
  • User has retracted the above accusation. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In summary, May122013 is essentially an SPA, is editwarring (in slow motion), and refusing to listen to consensus. I suggest either a topicban or a block until s/he agrees to stop disrupting the article and talkpage and wasting everyone's time. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, I did indeed ask May122013 to retract or take to SPI, which has been backed up by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN link - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already warned the user previous that a WP:BLPBAN or block may soon follow if they continued to edit war against consensus. There is a lot of wikilawyering going on with this user, and a single-mindedness that smacks more of agenda than neutrality. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier - but some of their concerns are, indeed, BLP concerns. I find it hard to totally dismiss a person who is right on something at least -- too many are right on seemingly nothing at all. <g> Collect (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article is in decent shape [42] and a number of editors have ensured it is neutral and not violating BLP concerns. Then we have an editor who many times a day shows up and reverts and wikilayers attempting to expunge a neutrally reported incident. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I striked [43] the "possible sockpuppet" comment. 2 editors suggested that I do that on my talk page and I do regret saying that. I right now publicly offer my apology to User:The Potato Hose. May122013 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot more than usual work activities over the next 10 days which severely limits my access to the internet, so please allow me at least 12 hours to respond to any other matters that anyone wishes to discuss. May122013 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the delay. Having editors with different views is our strength here, but you have to know when to pull back and accept when consensus on an edit is against you. We all are sometimes on the short side of consensus, you aren't unique in this. Calling someone a sockpuppet is disruptive and looks as if you are trying to undermine their argument using ad hominem. If you think they are socking, by all means, file at WP:SPI or ask an admin for assistance. There is a fine line between spirited debate, and wikilawyering and disruptive behavior. I don't think that blocking you is a done deal here, but it is on the edge. It is up to you. You need to demonstrate a willingness to work on these issues by both your words and deeds, or you may force us to consider other actions as a last resort. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting, given the ad hominem attacks, that the user in question has repeatedly complained about them, while happily using them him/herself. Without devolving into ad hominems myself, it's useful to consider that someone who complains about others doing something, while doing the exact same thing themselves, is probably therefore not acting in good faith. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support BLPBAN May1222013 has been arguing and edit-warring against consensus using poor arguments, as mentioned above. Also, in his two previous accounts he was tendentious in arguments about including rumours that the American president Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his autobiography was ghostwritten by a former radical left-wing terrorist. He also argued for including salacious details of allegations of sexual assault made against a former president of the World Bank. While he claims that the Toronto Star is not a reliable source for Rob Ford, he presented the far less respected Canada Free Press as rs ifor another article. He appears to apply different standards for BLPs, depending on his perception of the subject. TFD (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to TFD :TFD I want to also apologize to you for having been un polite towards you. I'd also like to address your points above, which you have caused me to think about intensely. It is reasonable for you to be saying that I apply different standards to different BLPs, as that may well be how it appears. But in actuality I apply the same 3 standards to all BLPs; which may be standards that I may have to drop in order to be more objective here on Wikipedia. Those standards are "consider the source"; "no censorship when it comes to public officials", and NPOV.

• With Ford those standards conflicted in my mind, yet I could not get above the fact that all of the "smoking crack" allegations originated with anonymous drug dealers and also the general perceived bias against Ford in the BLP ( as has been mentioned by dozens of other editors over the past 3 years ), so I thought exclusion of the crack allegations is the best path.

• With the Obama birther event, that's been about 2 years ago and please note that I even received a barnstar for my work on that subject: see User_talk:Mr.grantevans2. That event, to me, fell into the category of "no censorship" because the origination for those allegations came from several elected and high profile politicians and established business leaders like Donald Trump.

• With DSK, the head of the IMF at the time, the details of the alleged assault originated from New York City police investigators and had been published by RSs so they fit into my "no censorship" standard as well. In that case, I feel the details were important because they painted a much more of a predatorial attack than most of the mainstream press pictured. Also, DSK at that time was an employee of all of the taxpayers that contribute to the IMF, like you and me.

So, ironically, as you perceive that differing standards are my problem, I think, now that I've had the night to "sleep on it", that my main problem has been applying any of my personal standards when editing Wikipedia. So my objective, should I be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia, is to leave all of my personal standards out of my thinking about how an article can be improved. That may not be ideal, but I think that in my case its necessary. May122013 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that a good number of people take exception to your methods and for good cause. The previous warnings stand, and if there are future issues, I would still be inclined to use the BLPBAN or other methods to prevent disruption. I'm hopeful we won't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I can assure you this will not have to be revisited. May122013 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly disrupted the editing of this article by reverting completely what consensus has decided, by each time simply repeating unproven "WP:BLP" arguments. [44][45][46]. His arguments are based on his own original research that Gawker editor John Cook and two Toronto Star have fraudulently reported that they witnessed a video of Rob Ford smoking crack and that the video is a "hoax." Ironically May122013 is breaking WP:BLP by making such claims with zero sources to back up such claims. His disrupted editing is based completely on his original research that is not supported by any source.

He keeps on starting new sections on the Rob Ford talk page of red herrings like the Gawker editors no longer have access tot the video somehow meaning the reporters magically never viewed the video [47], there was once a casting call for Rob Ford lookalikes [48], there's a "doppelhanger" of Rob Ford in Toronto [49] and even the graphic Gawker used in its story as reason to delete all content of this controversy. [50]

No matter how much it's explained to him that the content does not violate BLP (as he does) and that consensus is against him, he simply employs WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeats his same original research "hoax" arguments and reverts all content of other users about this allegation.

And as for his WP:NPA violations, I'll leave an example of when he was asked if he had a conflict of interest in editing this article: "No conflict at all; can you please inform us if you are under 14 years old ?"

This person has shown nothing but disruption and a lack of respect for other editors and consensus and needs to be banned from editing this article, if not all articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, the user has undertaken to not make this a problem in the future. I think without evidence to the contrary we should probably believe that. But probably a good idea to keep an eye on things. — The Potato Hose 04:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geebee2 & Murder of Travis Alexander

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

---

user:Geebee2 is a WP:SPA and has serious COI, see this talk page section foe details. issues on the Murder of Travis Alexander article. Quite simply Geebee2 is engaged in advocacy as she believes the woman convicted of killing Alexander is innocent. She has used her own wiki as a source, even after being told she cannot. She uses her own wiki and her research on it to support her arguments on the talk page. She is a regular at the jodiariasisinnocent.com and has used that as a source[51] Her most recent edits show she is incalpable of following NPOV, here she says in her edit summary "Moved media interview information to Discovery and Investigation section, removed summary" What she has actually done is remove that Arias had give nthree different stories over the killings. Here she removes the section on the discovery of the body which according to GeeBee2 "it adds nothing to article" I request she be topic banned from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban for the user as the user has proven it can not objectively edit material about the subject. The user is ofcourse entitled to their opinion about guilt or unguilt but it can not be the users aim to remake the article into a pro-Jodi article a Wiki article should remain neutral. The user has so far been unwilling to change even though several users has tried to reason with it and an admin has warned the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are very badly informed.

(1) I am male not female.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(2) I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(3) It is you who has repeatedly vandalised the work I have done.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(4) There are issues which I have probably got wrong, related to the use of primary sources. The wikipedia guidance on this is extensive and ambiguous, so I make no apology for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(5) My POV is certainly that the article is wrongly titled. There is nothing whatsoever notable about the death of Travis Alexander, and everything notable about the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(6) Notwithstanding (1), there is a misogynistic double standard at wikipedia. See the Trayvon Martin article, which is nothing other than a defense website.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per my note further down in this thread, and because of Geebee2's belligerent and uncollaborative attitude in this very discussion, I'm changing my support for a ban to a proposal for an indefinite block. Please don't let's stand by and see constructive editors worn out by trying to contain this timewasting disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC). I agree with the descriptions above by Darness Shines and BabbaQ. I'll also note that Geebee2 is clearly an overwhelming contributor to collaborate with. Apart from his large demands for detailed talkpage discussion on every point, merely reading the history of Murder of Travis Alexander is exhausting. (Unfortunately that'll probably also affect people here who try to get a grasp on the issue.) I was in fact asked to help on my page recently, but had to (whinily) decline because of time constraints.[52] The trouble is Geebee2 makes a myriad edits with extreme rapidity, most of them small but with larger removals intermixed, and that method makes it hard to pinpoint the problems. He started editing Murder of Travis Alexander two months ago and has made 468 edits to it since then, accelerating all the time. The last 36 edits were performed in the space of three hours.[53] I'm not suggesting he's being deliberately overwhelming in order to OWN the article, but it's in fact impossible to keep up with this. Darkness Shines deserves our thanks for giving diffs to some problematic edits hidden in the jungle, especially this removal of important material with a misleading edit summary. That edit alone makes me worry about GeeBee2's claim above that "I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer." Incidentally there also seem to be problems of advocacy in Geebee2's editing of David Camm.[54] Possibly all BLP-related articles broadly construed should be included in the topic ban? Finally, Geebee2, please don't be so free with your accusations of WP:vandalism, here and in edit summaries; they're baseless and uncivil. You see how nobody's accusing you of vandalism? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• I suggest the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation. I repeat, I do not believe I have removed any significant content, certainly not within the last 24 hours. The page history is available. Please substantiate, and we can discuss what was removed, otherwise Darkness shines should withdraw his false allegation. The edit Bishonen references is because I resourced that material with proper dates today Note, one part went into the pre-trial section where it logically belongs. Geebee2 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the "burden of proof" lies with the user that makes 36 edits on a single article within the space of 3 hours and over 400 within a 2 months time span. Also you bring up discussions but from what I have seen everytime users try to discuss with you, you simply say they are wrong and you justify your edits and are not interested in discussing it further. When I contacted you, you stated that I should remove my comment. You need to realise that if you want to have discussions you have to be willing to have discussions and not see them as people "attacking you" at every given time. And all of this combined with you throwing accusations around against Bishonen and Shines who is just trying to reason with you makes me think a topic ban for you is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I said you should move the comment out of that section, as it was not relevant there. I have been subject to multiple attacks, but none of these people are contributing to the article, and generally the attacks are non-specific. I'm sure I have made mistakes, for example, yesterday someone supplied source, and asked for that to be included somehow, I went ahead, but it turned out the source was not appropriate, and the detail was not appropriate, and now I get the criticism. Other criticisms I get are completely non-specific. e.g. Darkness shines "I object to everything you do to this article". It is not possible to respond to such a vague charge. Geebee2 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• See how you edit too fast? Why would you include something somebody else requests, without even checking if the detail is appropriate and the source is appropriate? You're simply making work for others. Yes, you will "get the criticism" for edits that you do to the article, it's no good blaming the person requesting them. Don't add anything you can't take responsibility for. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Support. This is very difficult to sift through, but it seems to me that Geebee's only real objective in editing that article is to obfuscate any hint of criminality directed at Arias. Some of the removals performed to further that goal, such as fundamental information about the finding of the body etc. are particularly damaging. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• : Can anyone say what was actually wrong with the article when it was reverted by Darkness shines? [55]. My POV was (and is) that testimony belongs in the trial section, that was why I moved it there. There seemed to be some kind of violent objection - so I offered to move it back, but that was rejected, and 2 hours of hard work is lost. Sure I work quickly, and I make mistakes, the antiquated user interface at wikipedia is frustrating. I do make small edits, this is intended to allow people to see what I'm doing, not obfuscate. Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? And by the way, have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?Geebee2 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support a topic ban. In fact, I support an immediate block for every edit that even smells of advocacy. It is indeed hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in those many edits; the edit pointed out above I did see yesterday, but it was one of many and I wish I had looked more carefully to see what it was sourced to (I believe that edit was reverted as a BLP violation?)--that edit alone, after a week of such voluminous editing and warnings/discussion, is probably blockable already. Geebee is active on a few other articles as well and those articles and Geebee's edits are very problematic. Given the evidence of external interests I think it is established well enough that this editor is here to make a case, and it's not an encyclopedic case. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I encourage editors and admins to look at this edit I just made to Trial by media--an edit invited by this list of contributors and further explained on Talk:Trial by media. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Drmies's edit absolutely - the material removed was nothing but WP:OR and advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, does your account need to be blocked for being compromised? No cussword, no disagreement? :) Thanks, BTW. I pondered doing this yesterday already, and having slept over it I was sure that it needed to go. Pity there's little left right now of what could be a decent and important article. I wish we could require "only academic articles and books" as sources for some articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That re-insertion is a big problem, but I believe the burden of the editors to prove their accusations still remains. The ongoing edit war alone needs to be stopped as that alone is blockable.[56][57] Edits like this also show unacceptable POV pushing. But other edits seem to be acceptable, and useful.[58] Other additions to articles like Trial by Media push POV; which Drmies just took care of. [59] Over 150 revisions to that article made for one huge BLP concern. Geebee needs act within BLP policies or else should be blocked; the speed of the edits aren't the problem, its the edits and POV pushing itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see the point at "Trial by Media", I would point out that when I came across that article, it was already a list of cases, I just added some extra cases I happened to know about, and thought it would be interesting to do a comparison, looking at things like motive. Sure there is some kind of subjective selection here, the cases added are obviously cases that people for whatever reason perceive as miscarriages of justice, whether rightly or wrongly. Are there not places in wikipedia where lists get built in a collaborative way? I did ask a talk question about it a day or so in advance, and got no response. But Drmies thinks that is unacceptable, fair enough, I'm not going to argue, I think the article may as well be deleted entirely, there is nothing left except a single dodgy reference to the Bill Clinton case and an external reference to India.Geebee2 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geebee2, this is the administrators' noticeboard. It's primarily for getting comments from uninvolved, neutral, users, so you're shooting yourself in the foot with your repeated complaints that people here haven't contributed to the article. That's the way it's supposed to work. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's a collaborative site, and your response to the complaints about your editing methods is the last straw for me. "Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? I want to change my "support" for a ban, above, to a proposal for an indefinite block. Over the years, it's been my invariable experience on this site that when new users are urged civilly to avoid editing in a way that inconveniences others and they respond by demanding to be directed to a policy that forces them to comply — then they're not here to write an encyclopedia, they're here to wikilawyer and get their way by tiring everybody out. Never fails. Go ahead, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I can't make possibly controversial decisions for a few weeks, you know; it hurts me in the ratings (in the court of public opinion--Trial by media, you know). I am not yet at the point that Bbb apparently is, but also I have not yet seen what I'm hoping to seefind--a commitment to encyclopedic editing and an acknowledgement that they haven't been doing that so far. And I must say, Bbb makes a convincing case in his latest post. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I support an indefinite block. I realize that jumping to an indef without any preceding blocks is unorthodox, but a review of Geebee's edits warrants the sanction. I have been reviewing his edits since I read Basilisk's support. During that time, Drmies posted his views, which largely coincide with what I found in my review. I spent a fair amount of time working on the David Camm article, which Geebee extensively edited (280 edits, or almost 75% of the total edits to the article). Putting aside sloppiness, there were a significant number of copyright violations, which I have removed from the article, and Geebee committed at least some of them (I got tired looking). This edit is a copy-and-paste from the source. this massive edit (220 consecutive edits) includes other copyright violations as well. This edit is absurd. Geebee copied text verbatim from the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, didn't give it any attribution, and incorrectly cited the Indiana Supreme Court. I don't believe it's a copyright violation so I left it in as a long quote and attributed it properly - probably should be done differently. Then, on top of all this, you have the edit removing the death section, which has already been mentioned, and this edit, which removes negative material about Arias in the guise of summarizing. Then, there's the off-wiki blog, which was started by Geebee at roughly the same time as he started editing here again after almost five years of inactivity. If others are still uncomfortable with an indefinite block, then I propose broadening the topic ban to any pages on Wikipedia that are law-related, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not remove negative material about Arias, it was either moved to another section in the article or expanded giving more detailed date information derived from CBC News timeline ( and possibly redistributed elsewhere in the article to the most logical point ). It might look that way looking at a single diff, and maybe I did it the wrong way, but that's the truth. Geebee2 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's false. It's true that some of the material you moved to other locations, but you often removed material at the same time as you moved it. Moreover, some of the moves shifted the emphasis. Thus, for example, where there had been a separate section about Alexander's death, now his death was deemphasized by being put into a much longer section about the investigation. I'm not saying that I disagree with every single edit you've made. You've made far too many for some of them not to be problematic, but the bigger picture stands out that you have a clear bias and an agenda, whether you want to admit that or not. The diff I noted above was part of another of your infamous series of consecutive edits (32 of them in this instance) and is here. Interestingly, the article was reduced by 3,410 characters - hard to say that would be an expansion, isn't it? After you removed the material, you edit warred with Taroaldo and Darkness Shines about it until you realized you were in danger of breaching WP:3RR (DS left a warning on your talk page), although you already had.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, let me describe what I believe I did. Yesterday, I found an updated timeline, which gave dates for the televised interviews. Next I added these dates, and then thought these items belonged in the discovery and investigation section, so I moved them there from the media section. I think I also added another interview with "The Republic", and did some other minor changes. The 2009 interview went into the pre-trial section. Now, as a result of these changes, the "summary" (which has a hint of OR about it I think and also differed in style from the other entries in this section), was redundant, since the information was in the adjacent paragraphs, so I removed it. As a result, the number of characters in the article was reduced, but the information was increased. I also did some other changes to the discovery section, putting things into chronological order, but with Arias and Alexander treated separately. Finally (and I admit this was probably a mistake) I thought Dr Horn's testimony belonged in the trial section and moved it there, with the result that the "Death" section had no information left in it.Geebee2 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not real keen on endless back-and-forth. However, I'll reply once more. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you say in your last comment is true. You have't addressed the edit warring. You haven't addressed the self-righteousness with which you edit, either ignoring other editors' warnings or at least pushing it to just one step before you might be sanctioned. You haven't addressed the major changes you make to this and other articles without any real discussion with other editors (I've read some of your intense quibbling on the article talk page, driving most other editors crazy). You apparently plunge ahead. You haven't addressed the copyright violations in the Camm article. It appears to me that you are very biased and that those biases impel you to contribute in the fashion that you do, including occasionally apologizing so as not to appear to be a fanatic, as well as generally keeping your cool. We need neutral editors, or at least editors who try to be neutral as we all have our biases. You came here to edit in a certain way, and it's unacceptable. You eat up too many resources. You cause too much disruption. Whatever positive things you might contribute are far outweighed by the negatives. And I see no likelihood you'll change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the copyright issue, at the time I wasn't properly aware of the need to reword. I hadn't noticed your post on the talk page previously, I will go and attend to that now.Geebee2 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion in this thread and a review of Geebee2's editing, I have blocked him indefinitely for tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Excuse my tardiness.[60] The thread is closed, but I want to say a few things. I originally used gender-neutral pronouns for Geebee2, but I changed to using female pronouns because I had reason to believe that Geebee2 is female.[61] Geebee2 didn't correct me on using female pronouns in the thread that Darkness Shines linked to up higher. So it's suspicious that the correction was suddenly made in this thread. And up higher, Geebee2 asked, "have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?" I have. I agree with the indefinite block placed on Geebee2. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung

Section header shortened because it was messing up the display of the TOC on this page. Original title: User:Syngmung engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:CANVAS and inserting references to rape and flawed comparisons to numerous articles — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the title. I would like to propose a TBAN on "rape" for the foreseeable future. Syngmung apparently has some sort of axe to grind with the US military stationed in South Korea and the South Korean government that facilitates them. I am not a fan of either of these parties myself, but I can't condone any of the following actions:

• SYNTH on 1995 Okinawa rape incident, insisting that kidnapping and forcible rape of an elementary school student "is compared to" prostitution, citing two sources, one of which does not appear to mention Okinawa and the other of which mentions the incident but makes no such comparison.[62]
• Pretending in the article body to be citing a book but in fact giving a review of the book in the reference, implying that he/she has not in fact read the book but is inserting an out-of-context blurb in the article nonetheless.[63]
• Inserting disproportionate discussion of rape by U.S. soldiers after WW2 into an article about brothels and apparently using a hypothetical suggestion about setting up brothels as an excuse.[64]
• Canvassing numerous users with a misrepresentation of an ongoing deletion argument (accusing the delete/merge !votes of trying to "hide" something)[65][66][67][68] and canvassing numerous peripherally related WikiProjects with a misrepresentation of his/her opponents arguments/motives in an edit war.[69][70][71][72][73][74]
• Inserting links to articles on prostitution (particularly in South Korea) to the "See also" sections of unrelated/peripherally-related articles.[75][76][77]
• Adding a subsection about rape to the "Dramatizations of the invasion of Normandy" section, and then failing to get the point on being reverted numerous times.[78][79]

I know the user is going to accuse me (again) of being an SPA whose purpose is to edit war with him/her. This may be taken as true, given the circumstances, but please consider that I was editing Wikipedia (anonymously) some years ago, and came back when I noticed during my browsing that someone was adding inappropriate rape/prostitution references and comparisons to an article (the Okinawa one) that I just happened to be reading. Now that I have that out of the way can we focus on Syngmung's behavior? The user got blocked a few days ago for edit warring and when unblocked went straight back to adding the same kind of questionable material, and I just wanted to bring this to the community's attention, at least to the point that it hasn't already.

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW, I know my diffs are a little bare, but in order to give a full context for this user's violations, I would need to basically cite every single edit the user has made for the last week or two. A look at the contributions page should not contradict anything that I have just said, though. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC) )

Nonsense. I have already talked some of my points according to reliabled sources. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone argued according to his OR without sources. Besides, I have already been bloked as being edit wars. It is unfair, cos Eh doesn't afraid of anyone are bringing the former issues. So, now I make great effort to talke in talk page. But Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ignore my effort to talk in talk pages and try to exclude users who dont match with his view.--Syngmung (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing material is never OR. Drawing a completely original comparison between the forcible rape of a child with prostitution is OR, even if one has two separate sources that each mention one but not the other. Please stop making personal attacks against me if you can't demonstrate with diffs -- which users have I tried to exclude? What is my "view"? I have engaged you on talk pages every chance you have given me -- remember that one not long ago where you accused me of promoting a POV by deleting your rape subsection, to which I responded immediately?[80] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Syngmung for one week for resumption of edit warring at Rape during the liberation of France and for canvassing. The topic ban discussion can continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban As noted in the above report, Syngmung has an axe to grind on the topic US military personnel in Korea and is routinely engaging in sustained edit warring and the misrepresentation of sources to push his POV across multiple articles. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of User:Syngmung from all topics regarding U.S. military personnel. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof of this discussion as well. He edit warred with "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" more than Symuyang did on that one article, at least recently [81] [82] [83], while Symuyang inserted that rape stuff in several articles. I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof or "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" should receive any sanctions though. In the latter case sanctions would be rather ineffective anyway. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:EDITWAR. If two editors have a content dispute and they resolve it peacefully by discussing it on the talk page, it's not technically an edit war. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

After you two edit warred for a while, you indeed did compromise on the talk page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent copy violations from User:Gunkarta

I was checking out a series of bilateral articles created by Gunkarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and found a persistent and serious pattern of blatant copy violations. Gunkarta is an experienced editor so there is no excuse for this blatant violation of WP rules. I would suggest a topic ban for creating bilateral articles but leave it up to the community to suggest a course of action. Below is only what I believe is the tip of copyright iceberg:

• [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]
• [95]

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Libstar, I examined [96] for numbers 31 through 69.  The pattern I found is that articles you create with over 1000 bytes are copy and pastes that are missing attribution history.  #30 is a special case which I have addressed here.

• [97], [98]
• [99], [100], [101]
• [102], [103]
• [104], [105]

Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I will use an edit summary in future, but I am curious why you are not commenting on the serious copyvio in my original complaint. Is there a reason why not? LibStar (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright attorney, are you?  In your edit comment you identify [106] as a "blatant" case of copyvio.  The text transformation is not cut and paste.  What criteria did you apply to determine that there was a copyvio?  What criteria did you apply to determine that it was "blatant"?  Point 4 of Copyright#Fair use mentions "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".  Have you developed an opinion about the change in the potential market value of the copyrighted work?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your goal here? Are you looking to catch me out? The point I am making is that this user has a history of copy violations, yet all you are interested is trying to paint me as the bad one. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks Crisco for your wise words. Unscintillating has gone off on some tangent trying to pursue me for some unknown reason and ignoring the extent of user gunkarta copy violations. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Again with going off on your own vector, Unscintillating, particularly since any Wikipedia editor can (and should) report possible copyright violations - even if they are not lawyers. Yes, this is blatant copy-pasting, in violation of copyright. I note, however, that it is not uncommon for Indonesian editors (particularly those raised on the Indonesian Wikipedia, which has much more lax copyright policies), so the assumption that he understands that it is wrong may be faulty. Has Gunkarta been notified and/or adequately warned? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys.., currently I've been working on expanding articles on countries of Indonesian bilateral relations as my own personal project. I did not realize that I have caused such problems on copyright stuff. Surely I'm not a master in this laws matter (and certainly not the fan of it), and yes Crisco.., I think Indonesian wikipedians are somewhat not quite that good (or rigid) on "grasping" the idea of copyright stuff and tends to lax in this department. But one thing I know is at least the things written in wikipedia articles should be verifiable. Of course during my work, I referred to respectable trusted sources such as embassy websites, foreign relations office/ministry, and news. I did not realize that the referencing, citing and quoting I did was a copyvio (too much of them perhaps?). I think I need to work my senses to know a healthy balance between a good citing and the so called copyvio. One thing I can sure you all, that this is not my intention or some deliberate actions on my side. I'm not really familiar with this copyvio rules in articles. I only familiar in copyvio on wikimedia commons materials such as images and photographs. Let me know where did it went wrong. I think the wise decision is, to tell me which parts where there is too much quotations that could be considered as copyvio, and let me try rewrite it in my own words (despite my weaknesses in grammars, vocabularies etc). Any contributions and helps to improve the Indonesian bilateral relations articles are welcome and greatly appreciated. Thanks... Cheers.. Gunkarta (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gunkarta, glad to see you here. The issue is with how close the wording is (close paraphrasing, if you will). Compare, for instance:

Source:

The Goethe-Institut Jakarta organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Jakarta. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks that are borne of both its cultural history and the effects of globalisation, in its regional projects and current plans. ... the Goethe-Institut Jakarta has a national network of representatives who promote German as a foreign language in Indonesia ... We provide language courses, workshops and seminars for teachers in teaching German as a foreign language, not to mention a comprehensive examination programme. ... The info centre at the Goethe-Institut Jakarta provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany.

Article:

"It organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Indonesia. It promotes German as a foreign language in Indonesia by providing German language course, also provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks."

Bolded elements are verbatim from the source. We need to reword it, extensively to, make this information useable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for pointing and explaining the problems. I think summarize or rewording would be good. I don't mind to reduces the information (details) from the sources as long as the points is made, which is "Goethe Institute provides German course in Indonesia and promotes their culture".Gunkarta (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Summarizing or rephrasing would be perfect. For example, "It focuses on cultural events which present German culture and language to Indonesians. Indonesians who wish to learn more can take language courses and also read about aspects of life in Germany." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

section break

I've found a few more:

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]
• [111]
• [112]
• [113]

LibStar (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the scope of this, perhaps it's best that a copyright investigation is opened over at WP:CCI, since we've found quite a few issues. Wizardman 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Gunkarta, are you still following this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. MER-C 10:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged: topic ban

Laurel Lodged has a history (years) of making mass changes to articles on issues to do Irish counties. Typically his/her changes involve making "corrections" to whole swathes of articles at a go changing references to "traditional" counties to "administrative" counties (e.g. County Tipperary to Tipperary North). Typically, these changes are controversial and without consensus (or under the pretence of some consensus).

The problem with Laurel Lodged making changes like these has been raised at WikiProject Ireland-related pages on many occasions. At this stage, Laurel Lodged knows that these changes are controversial and that the community does not appreciate his/her contributions of this kind. One of the last times this happend, I raised the question of a topic ban. There wasn't consensus then as to whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned or forced to first seek consensus before making changes like these.

A new thread has been opened on WikiProject Ireland to do with a new set of mass changes Laurel Lodged's has made. I propose now that Laurel Lodged be topic banned from making changes to do with Irish counties and their names.

I've left a message on the WikiProject Ireland thread inviting comment here on whether Laurel Lodged should be topic banned. --RA (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. For some idea of the seriousness of the issue, see this AN/I thread, Request from uninvolved admin, from January this year. I might add that none of the other editors in that discussion have been involved in any disruptive mass editing since then, but Laurel Lodged still continues as before. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Scolaire 1. the quoted ANI case has nothing to do with the current case. The two are unrelated. This is about Counties of Ireland whereas the cited case concerned the Gaelic Athletic Association and their peculiar use of GAA county. 2. That case did not result in any censure for me or the other cited user - Brocach. So my account is still in good standing despite your attempt to impugn my reputation with the slur. 3. I have abided by the ruling in that case, even though I argued against at the time. 4. I defy you to find any edit of mine since that date that is in defiance of the decisions arrived at in that case. 5. No evidence of any misuse of wiki guidelines has been produced in support of the current case as presented (as opposed to the different case cited). 5.On any reading of our interactions over the years, which have usually been on opposite sides, it will become obvious to an uninvolved reader what may have been the true motivation for Scolaire's support in this case. There was a passing bandwagon and Scolaire gleefully jumped aboard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Both cases involve you trying to substitute all county names with the administrative county name. How many times have you been involved in discussions that point out to you that the traditional name is the most commonly used name, and the one that currently enjoys consensus? The point *you* should have taken from previous discussions and ANI wasn't that you "weren't censured", but that the reasons you provided for switching to using the administrative county names haven't been accepted by the community, and although the previous ANI was focused on the context of GAA county names, it did not give you license to switch to a different usage context and carry on as before. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to HK In the cited ANI case, it was not about my inserting county names. It was about my inserting the letters GAA into (shock/horror) GAA articles. So the two are not comparable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support The strength of the previous case noted, plus the current case - added to the incredibly vindictive and attacking post above - all add together to say "topic ban as a minimum". Past behaviour always comes into play - especially if that behaviour has not demonstrably improved. To actually say what Laural said above in full view of administrators and the community really shows that they're not here to play nicely with others. As such, a 6 month topic ban and indefinite civility parole is supportable AND supported (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I thought a Topic Ban has received support previously, and I support the current request for one. This editor is simply not learning that these edits have really no support or consensus. Given that these exact types of edits from this editor have been discussed on several occasions before (especially the whole "traditional" county vs "administrative" county) and didn't find support, the onus was on the editor to ensure that future edits were in line with existing norms. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support County names should be used sensible. Sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option, sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option. But the endless edit wars and disputes are tiresome and damaging to the encyclopaedia. So I support a) a six month topic ban for Laurel Lodged, b) a 2 month topic ban for everyone who starts edit warring about county names, and c) an investigation into ways of avoiding these conflict (i.e. rules when to use the name of an administrative county and when to use the name of the "classic" county) The Banner talk 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Banner I agree that edit warring is tiresome and damaging. I fail to see how topic banning me while leaving the other warring parties untouched is either just or sensible or in the best interests of Wiki. There are always at least two parties to a war. Why would you assume that my arguments are less worthy than the arguments of the other parties? Let them present their arguments and then come to judgement. Those arguments will probably revolve around WP:Common. My arguments revolve around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. As HighKing commented in the WikiProjectIreland page, "There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary.". That's very true - there is a difference of opinion and there is conflicting Wiki policy guidelines. In my opinion, I am perfectly entitled to rely on the "Use modern names" guideline. There is nothing, nothing to say that it is in any way inferior to "Common". To say otherwise is just a matter of opinion. In short, who's to say that the edit warring is not caused by those editors who obstinately stick to the "Common" policy while refusing to acknowledge the presence, let along validity of "Use modern names". Let he who is without sin in this edit war cast the first stone. Secondly, I also agree with Banner when he says "sometimes "North Tipperary" is the best option.". That is to say, context is all important. To give an example, there are times when it is best to speak of Byzantium, other times when it's best to speak of Constantinople and still others when it's best to speak of Istanbul. To stick rigidly to Istanbul when speaking of Constantine the Great would be wrong, even though the 3 sites occupied the same ground at various times. Conversely, to say that the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge is located in Constantinople is also wrong. Yet this is precisely what many of the supporters here would have us do - to ascribe historical, defunct administrative names to current realities. Context is important; when dealing with modern realities, use modern names. This position in neither capricious, OR, disruptive or unsupported by wiki guidelines. I have every reason to believe that the opposite is true. That there is a claque of irredentist editors (excepting Banner) with a misty-eyed vision of a 32-county state who wish to pursue an "A Nation Once Again" agenda through wiki, is no reason for me to admit that facts are not facts. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit comments over the top

I've never posted here before. Was patrolling recent edits and came across IP User 207.207.28.141 who left unnecessarily inflammatory edit comments on this diff [114]. Is this the right place to go? Should I use the ANI notice? --Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for two weeks. --RA (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we get that summary suppressed? It really shouldn't stand in the history.  davidiad { t } 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) already took care of it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama‎

A second set of eyes would be welcome here. As an involved editor, I don't want to press a revert war with an anon who obviously feels quite passionate about this topic. I may have already gone a bit beyond the pale in reverting. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP-violations by IP. Besides their disruptive editing and warring, they're adding unsourced and unreliable sourced content in violation of BLP. Some admin please look into this. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, then removed their talkpage access after they started using it as a soapbox. Several other editors have exceeded 3RR, but given the IP's battleground attitude and use of the article for soapboxing, the IP was the locus of disruption. Their edits after blocking confirmed my view, and I'm semi-protecting the article for a month. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That just proves you're part of the Wikipedia tree-hugging liberal pansy conspiracy, I think. (Thanks for the assist.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ownership issues at Template:Attached KML

For reasons discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal, {{Infobox Australian road}} now uses KML data, with related KML files stored as subpages of the template. Infobox Australian road is managed by WikiProject Australian Roads, while editors at Template talk:Attached KML are trying to force a move of KML data at Infobox Australian road to subpages of Attached KML. This seems to be a clear case of editors at one template asserting ownership of all KML files, which is highly inappropriate, as is any attempt to assert ownership. Attached KML certainly has the right to use KML data but, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia, it doesn't own it, as much as it would apparently like to. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think calling this an "incident" is overstating the issue. The locus of the dispute is that up to now, all KML data has been stored in subpages of {{Attached KML}}. The Australian road editors want to include the KML links in the Australian road infobox, which is a reasonable thing to do, albeit one that I (and other editors) disagree with. What the disagreement is over is that KML data is being copied to subpages of the infobox, which several editors have agreed is a bad thing because it causes data duplication and results in data being stored in several different locations. Ultimately the whole thing will become moot when Wikidata advances to the point that this data can be moved over there. I may be wrong, and I am involved so that may be clouding my judgment, but at this point I would say this is still just a content dispute and no admin intervention is required—discussion is going on, people are making points, and certainly people's dander may be up a bit, but there's nothing close to the metaphorical Wikipedia fistfights that usually get dragged to ANI going on here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with the required notifications which you didn't, and thank you for explaining what admin action you are requesting which you also didn't. This is borderline forum shopping. --Rschen7754 10:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of one template asserting ownership over content used by another template. WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted. I haven't specifically addressed any editor, just a group, so it's not really necessary to notify particular editors and since this is the only place I've sought intervention, it's not forum shopping. Please also remember, although this directly involves {{Infobox Australian road}} there was an active move to not address the issue at that template by Scott5114 who, coincidentally, is also the creator of {{Attached KML}}. At best it's disingenuous to accuse me of forum shopping. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I was attempting to forum shop or slip something by you; that was not my intention at all. I was simply trying to keep there from being two discussions on the same thing occurring at the same time, and I figured that it would be better to have the discussion continue at the Attached KML talk page because that page is watched by more editors (many of which had already commented there). We could have just as well moved the discussion to WT:HWY or somewhere else, but I figured it would be simplest to just continue debate at the template talk page. I wish you hadn't opened this ANI thread, because now we have a third page where discussion on this topic is going on, and it's slowly morphing into a meatball:ForestFire.

I don't really think there are OWN issues here; you may see it that way, but I assure you that we are simply proposing what we feel is the best technical solution to the problem. It's unfortunate that you disagree with us, but disagreement is something that happens regularly on Wikipedia, and we have to rise to meet the challenge of working through it and finding a solution to that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you posted this message at Template talk:Infobox Australian road I responed with "Since we're discussing this infobox, I don't see why we should discuss at that template".[115] To date you have made no attempt to address that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not just discussing the infobox anymore, but rather the larger question of "how shall KML data on the English Wikipedia be administered"? That question should be answered with the involvement of all of the people who have a stake in KML data. For better or for worse, the only page that all of those people watch is Template talk:Attached KML. (Many of them are not involved in the road projects per se, but have a programming or general geography interest.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The move proposal has nothing to do with how KML data on the English Wikipedia is administered. It's aimed purely at Attached KML taking control of KML data used by another template. If you want to discuss the administration of KML data, open an RfC and then decide what to do with Infobox Australian road's KML data based on the outcome of the RfC. How KML data should be managed in the long term has already been determined - the plan is to move it to Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with AussieLegend, KML data is not owned by Attached KML or the people who watch its page, if another wikipedia group wish to use KML for their own purposes. There is nothing stopping them. The long term goal is the same anyway (migrate to wikidata). Im sure we can even discuss ways of keeping the two sets with exactly the same content (which shouldnt be a massive task given the low number of KML files) -- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see ownership issues here. Notices of discussions were made at WikiProject Highways [116], WikiProject Australian Roads [117], and Infobox Australian road [118], with discussion occurring at Template talk:Attached KML. The discussion brought to attention here regards moving KML file subpages from one template to the other. This would not prevent anyone using the KML files in any way, and would only require a line or two of infobox template code to be changed. The KML files should really be in the File namespace, rather than template subpages, but that is not currently possible. - Evad37 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Posting some notices doesn't negate WP:OWN. The discussion is about removing content from Infobox Australian road, so the discussion should have continued at that template's talk page. It shouldn't have been moved to another template where the editor would receive a more sympathetic ear. The people at Attached KML have a vested interest in maintaining control of KML data and the instigator was that template's creator. Even the appearance of ownership is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this is all a storm in a teacup. The WP:OWN issue is the "formal proposal" at Template talk:Attached KML. The entire discussion went from 0 to 100mph within less than a single day (since notices were posted), and noone can restrict access to wikipedia files to any other groups on wikipedia without some reasoning that consists of more than not wanting to have two copies (as there is no centralised source yet). Perhaps if instead of trying to push through the issue to a conclusion so quickly, all parties could discuss it a little further, and hopefully a bit more calmly, perhaps a compromise can be found?

I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :).... (and as I stated back there I dont even care so much how this pans out as long as the functionality works) -- Nbound (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal that has a wide margin of support. That's called consensus. Furthermore, there is no WP:OWN issue here; WP:OWN would be restricting the use of KML to the {{Attached KML}} template. I suggest that this thread be closed. Sometimes, neither side is going to budge, and straw polls have to be used to reflect where the consensus is, and we have to go with that. That's how Wikipedia works. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of binding consensus that takes place on wikipedia generally requires a bit more time to allow editors to commment. Move proposals take 7 days, RfCs take 30, (and both generally follow long discussions on the matter anyway) the more informal consensus building ways don't have to follow those guidelines, but the time so far is far too short. American editors involved may not realise it's actually a long weekend here and many editors will likely be taking a short vacation/holiday. Straw polling two sides that "wont budge" goes against the very ethos of "consensus building". Are you saying that either side is so stubborn that they are unwilling to compromise or be swayed? As Ive stated, I dont care how this turns out as long as it works, but Im still worried about how this is essentially being steamrolled through so quickly in the name of a supposed consensus. AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion. I hope that you and others would be willing to do the same. Leaving things as they are for a few more days isnt going to hurt anything or break the encyclopedia. :) -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the most recent vote seems to have highlighted a need for categorisation in their opinion also. -- Nbound (talk)

"AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion." Can you please point to this? I sure haven't seen it. Sometimes, when building consensus, there is going to be a minority of people who disagree. On a large site like the English Wikipedia, we can't cater to everyone, especially when the options are so binary (we can enable Pending Changes or we can disable it. There's no middle ground... for example). I'm very concerned at the stalling tactics that are being used here - I think AussieLegend is hoping that people will forget about this and that he will be allowed to continue doing whatever he wants, ignoring what the actual consensus is. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, my post stated "I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :)", and his immediate reply was "That would seem reasonable.". -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For all we know AussieLegend might be quite happy to keep the files at Attached KML if there is some decent form of categorisation (instead of 4000 files all together, IIRC - there are already some suggestions of how by Floydian and WOSlinker)... There simply hasnt been enough discussion at this stage to start taking strawpolls in the name of consensus. -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is just a proposal. It has no effect until it is closed. That could be a week from now. That could be two weeks from now. And votes can always be changed. In fact, it's generally premature to close a proposal while discussion is going on (which it clearly is). Thus, I see no reason why starting a proposal was inappropriate. --Rschen7754 02:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is automatically assuming the outcome of discussions, there are likely compromise options which havent even had time to air yet, yet its already been claimed by yourself that the opinions are binary (removal vs. keeping) and there is no middleground, which appears to be untrue amongst both supporters and those currently opposed to the removal of the fork (some kind of categorisation at least for AU KML files?). The proposal is premature, delaying it by a couple of days isnt going to hurt or break anything. -- Nbound (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the KML files can be in one place or they can be in many places, so in that regard, yes, it is binary. And I am still awaiting an answer to my question of how administrative assistance is needed here. I'm obviously recused from this thread, but if I wasn't, I would be closing this thread to that effect. --Rschen7754 02:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is binary in that regard, but the discussion has bought up the possibility of more nuanced options than that. There are shades of grey/gray. Lets see if any of these alternative options bear fruit? :) -- Nbound (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So (obviously pending AussieLegend's agreement) can we agree to close this thread? --Rschen7754 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The ownership issue DOES exist, despite the claims of Attached KML supporters. They are asserting control of all KML data on Wikipedia by insisting that other templates comply with Attached KML's method of storing data, i.e. storing ALL KML data on Wikipedia as 4,300+ subpages of Attached KML even though the other templates do not use Attached KML. That's the very essence of WP:OWN. Attached KML is saying "You can use our KML files, but you can't have your own set because they're ours" and quite simply, Attached KML doesn't have that right. Despite Rschen7754's assertion I have siad what intervention I'm requesting: "WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted." Administrators can close the proposed move as violation of WP:OWN and direct that discussion should take on the talk page of the relevant template (i.e. {{Infobox Australian road}}). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just going to stop responding, as I am not going to respond to such a statement that is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. --Rschen7754 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived without resolution

Archived. As I can't edit more than 5000 characters, I continued here, which has also exceeded 5000 characters. But it may be also archived without admin decision. I request you to decide about claim of User:Rahuljain2307 over Chanakya that being Brahmin and reading Vedas does not necessarily mean being follower of Hinduism. His claim makes all sources and all existing knowledge about Hinduism irrelevent. neo (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agent Smith: Why isn't this serum working? Agent Brown: Perhaps we are asking wrong questions

— The Matrix

I recalled this quote while looking at admin silence. But admins are not rebellion like Morheus. They are supposed to be Police who not only punish crime but to prevent it and guide general public. When it comes to blocking some user, every admin run to show his power. When it comes to help, you go on backfoot... And I just recalled...

Joker: Why so serious?

— The Dark Knight

neo (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin: Just passing by, but if it hasnt already it might be more appropriate to have an RfC or DRN case. After which the user can then be banned for edit warring or something more specific if they continue their disruptive behaviour. -- Nbound (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately no admin has come forward to make any comment to resolve this dispute. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website of Chanakya National Law University says that Chanakya studied Vedas. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing Brahmin caste with Chanakya. this website of Outlook (magazine) refer Chanakya as Brahmin. as per this translation of Chanakya Niti Shastra wrote by Chanakya himself Chanakya was devotee of Vishnu. I reject extremely weird claim of reported user that being Brahmin, reading/preaching sacred religious Vedas does not mean being a Hindu. He may also claim that praying before Hindu deities does not mean being a Hindu. I reject it. As per sources I am going to make edit on Chanakya to state his religion as Hindu. If reported user resort to edit war I will come back again. neo (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Karlwhen

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

The above named user is using their main userspace to hold material that is excessive unrelated content.

• I notified the user on 16 April 2013 about this, and also provided links to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT.
• On the 7 June 2013 the user stated on a different talk page "Why can't I have my own material and data on MY own page? It's MY user page. I don't see how I'm breaking any rules.". To which I responded on Karlwhen's talk page explaining that his user page is property of the Wikipedia Community, and should not be used as a social media/blogger page.
• An administrator further explained to Karlwhen regarding this issue.
• Karlwhen appears to be ignoring requests to remove the content from his userpage, by doing actions such as blanking talkpages, without responding to comments or taking appropriate action to remove the content that he has been asked to remove by 2 editors.

Please could someone look into this matter, and perhaps take whatever necessary steps that needs to be taken. (All persons mentioned have been notified of this ANI). Many thanks, Wesley♦Mouse 13:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Karlwhen has now removed the excessive content that against WP:UPNOT as well as removing the ANI notification that I had sent to him. Looks like the issue is now resolved, unless of course someone feels the urge to still notify Karlwhen about userspace. Wesley♦Mouse 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the user has now understood the point. Unfortunately I have lost count of the number of users using their userspace to as free webspace to host tables for fictional online song contests, and the issue has the potential to get out of hand if not dealt with. However, most users will remove the content when asked to do so. CT Cooper · talk 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 75.114.222.69

An IP 75.114.222.69 is adding a category to John McEnroe Category:American sportspeople in doping cases and Category:Doping cases in tennis here and it was reverted by me and another editor who also reported the IP to AIV but think it has been declined and recommended taking to ANI.Being a voluntary follower of 1RR ,I do not revert it again.This appears to be a case of clear violation of WP:BLP to say John McEnroe was involved in doping when there no clear WP:RS in this.The edit needs to be reverted.This page is very highly viewed page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is quite the issue you're making it out to be. The article contains a paragraph about McEnroe taking steroids, and is referenced to a reliable source, in which McEnroe himself admits he took steroids. Whether or not the category is really necessary I don't know, but I don't think it's a clear-cut BLP issue. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.Sorry the report is about the IP as per this recommendation. Actually the IP has been blocked twice in in April and has violated the 3RR rule and has adding information in WP:BLP and edit warring in Shane Carwin in addition to John McEnroe the information is very controversial and it has been reverted both in Shane Carwin and also in John McEnroe by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dodging a topic ban?

Recently user Jax 0677 received a topic ban regarding templates. Off course, he was not happy with that but now I have the nasty feeling that he is dodging the topic ban with the help of an assistant/meatpuppet, in this case User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Evidence (more or less a random choice):

• Involved template: Template:October Tide
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 9/6/2013 03:19
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 13:53

• Involved template: Template:Bill Medley
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: two remarks, last at 8/6/2013 22:06
• Addition to template by Frietjes: two edits, last at 9/6/2013 13:50

• Involved template: Template:D Mob
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 8/6/2013 19:11
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 15:22

I did not check every item but due to me nominating the templates, they are on my watchlist. And suddenly I see a lot of Frietjes-edits on templates that I have recently nominated, show up. Too many to be a coincidence. Request for help from Jax to Frietjes: here, here, here, here, here and here. These request started as soon as the day after the topic ban was issued. And as far as my superficial check went, Frietjes responded in most cases.

It is possible that I am overly itchy to Jax after all the trouble in the past, so I would like to hear other opinions. The Banner talk 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

seems like this was constructive comment, which is in contradiction to starting an ANI thread. The fact that you see a lot of my edits could have something to do with the comments that I am making on the respective TfDs. Yes, I do read the notes posted on my talk page, and sometimes I add links to templates and articles in response to those comments. I also express an independent opinion at TfD, and more often than not, concur with the deletion of the associated templates. of course, that hasn't stopped you from attacking me there as well. also interesting that I was only recently informed of the topic ban, and the editors invited to comment on it did not include me. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have both the nomination pages and the individual templates on my watchlist. And even after a clear warning you continued. The Banner talk 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry, but how is saying "this starts to look at dodging a topic ban..." issuing me a "clear warning"? I am guessing English is not your native language, and I was never informed that I or anyone else was topic banned, nor was I provided a link to any topic ban. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a good old classic to attack the messenger when you have no arguments against the message. The Banner talk 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can both of you please just drop it? This is not helping. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Circumventing the ban wouldn't surprise me in the least. IDHT is a common issue with that editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree that Jax is circumventing the topic ban by notifying another editor (a regular participant in TfDs) of articles that exist or that he has created on topics for which a template just happens to be nominated for deletion. I have no issue with Frietjes on this matter. Frietjes can do his own due diligence on templates at TfD without Jax's sketchy attempts to manipulate their outcomes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" being disruptive

User:Lguipontes, who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" [119], keeps reverting in Template:World homosexuality laws map for no valid reason whatsoever. All countries in yellow enforce anti-gay laws (see ILGA map: [120]), yet the editor keeps reverting to this version [121]. I warned him already [122], but doesn't seem to work. Cavann (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Deus meu, por que tive a impressão ontem à noite de que seria HOJE de que eu iria para a AN/I?! (Oh, my God, I had the impression just yesterday at night that TODAY I would go to AN/I?!) I may only be a witch... And I thought I would never be exposed to teh dramaz since I'm lazy, slow and pacifical like that animal I put on my page and talkpage and I forgot the English name but I can't look at it in another tab because exactly in the last 10 minutes I lost my PC's mouse (I remembered!) a slot so I would solve anything with civilized talk... It only needed a small amount of irony and bad mood due to headache. If there's a God, he's laughing at me now. -.- Lguipontes (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

For those wanting to see my reasoning of why it does include countries which do not have it always enforced, please see the historic of the usage of the file on Commons. Yeah, I thought we don't depend solely on a single source to build Wikipedia consensus, I didn't even went to check this out as I thought Cavann had the perspective of one who just found out that map as it was the first time I got him passing by that area... I'd be happy to 'obey' if it was already known Ron 1982, Kwamikagami, L.tak, Chase1492, Flyer22 or any other editor to the map or person otherwise involved in discussing it or interpretations on LGBT rights changes across the world before. I'm sorry for the slow edit war and anything, I will not revert him back. See, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, no need for reporting me to the administrator noticeboard on incidents. Sorry for the bad English, I'm too nervous, too stressed and too busy right now to revise it. Lguipontes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Confession

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

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i want to confess about new socks that i have made but the editing filter blocked my list of users, can someone help me? 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 6 accounts are involved in this confession 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Alarming sockpuppet

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

---

Can someone please (a) block User:Kevin R. Guidry as a blatant sockpuppet and (b) use checkuser tools to see if you can figure out who is behind that and if other accounts or IP addresses need to be blocked? I ask for these extraordinary steps because it's quite alarming that someone would register account in my own name and edit my employer's article using that account. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You should make a report at WP:SPI. _→AzaToth 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy given the obvious facts in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for vandalism only account. _→AzaToth 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you can only have a "check user" done by doing an SPI. This might reveal what other accounts this person was using.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Mangoeater. I blocked a bunch of sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Parallel and the Energy Catalyzer article.

This new contributor, one of a long line of single-purpose accounts concerning the controversial Energy Catalyzer article, has in spite of multiple warnings persisted in using the article talk page as a soapbox, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Relevent policies concerning article content - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS etc, as well as the WP:FRINGE guideline have repeatedly been pointed out, to no avail. When, after repeated soapboxing, Parallel was asked to confine comments on the talk page to proposals regarding article content, he chose to first copy-paste verbatim a large section from 'Engineering News' a minor South African website, [123] suggesting this as a replacement for already-agreed sourced content. After the obvious problem regarding copyright was pointed out, Parallel went on to inform us that he had "emailed for copyright permission" [124]. Informed that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by contributors, not copy-pasted from elsewhere, Parallel then made this proposal for article content:

The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5][6] An Italian patent, which received a formal but not a technical examination, describes the apparatus as a "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen".[7][8]

There are a dozen theories of how it works, but none is widely accepted. NASA is following the theory of Widom-Larsen. (ref http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory) The US Patent Office has rejected all patents on LENR since 1989, following failed attempts to replicate Fleischmann and Pons “cold fusion” paper, although this has since been replicated, so Rossi cannot reveal proprietary details.

Rossi has publicly demonstrated several different versions of the E-Cat since January 2011, culminating in the demonstration of a plant rated at 1 MW made from 106 E-Cats, that produced 436 kW of heat in October 2011. 1 MW plants are now offered for sale through Leonardo Corporation 1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 USA.

Independent tests, funded by Elforsk, were carried out on the E-Cat HT, a high temperature version, by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The test in December ran 96 hours, the test in March 116 hours. The scientists say the results indicated anomalous heat production at least an order of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction, but their paper has not yet been peer reviewed. A summary has been posted on Elforsk’s web site. They are funded to continue with a six month test starting this Summer. (sources cited by Parallel: [125][126][127], diff [128])

Given that large chunks of this are entirely unsourced (unsurprisingly, given the claims regarding LENR/cold fusion, which is currently fringe science at best), and given the blatant disregard for NPOV, I think that the description given by TenOfAllTrades - "advertorial" - [129] is entirely apt. That Parallel should think it appropriate to include the address of the supposed supplier of this as-yet-unverified device in an article is almost beyond belief.

Sadly, Parallel seems either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, or unwilling to abide by them, and is continuing to fill the article talk page with unsourced assertions about 'facts' and about the supposed 'bias' of contributors unwilling to swallow the E-Cat promoter's claims whole. Not only are we faced with endless assertions regarding a 'truth' that mainstream science has entirely failed to confirm, but we are now confronted with yet another 'truth' - that this device is apparently available to purchase! "How can the E-Cat be fringe science and nonexistent when you can buy a 1 MW plant?" [130] Needless to say, this ridiculous claim that the E-Cat is available for purchase is unverified by any remotely-credible source.

As I have shown, and as further scrutiny of Parallel's edit history [131] will confirm, this contributor seems entirely unable to work construtively within Wikipeda policy concerning the E-Cat article, and has done nothing but disrupt discussions and waste other people's time. I am of the opinion that a topic ban may be the only solution - at least until Parallel can demonstrate competence by contributing usefully in unrelated topic areas. It is to be expected that newcomers should be given a little slack, and should be given time to learn how Wikipedia works - but there have to be limits, and I think that such limits have been exceeded already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. How and why is this pseudoscience scammy bullshit still included in Wikipedia? The article in question hasn't been peer reviewed because there is nothing to peer review! The so-called 'scientists' who 'examined' this device were prohibited from examining, get this, the power source going into the device. Everything about this LENR scam is total bullshit. If it were true, the 'scientist' in charge would have been getting everyone to peer review it as often as possible. It is the kind of scientific breakthrough that eclipses Einstein. Or it would be if it were true. My solution: ban, on sight, anyone promoting this scam. It is no different than "I lost weight using this one weird trick..." — The Potato Hose 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally new things are discovered. A Chief Scientist of NASA says the evidence for LENR is now overwhelming. Possibly you know more that Dr. Bushnell? Parallel (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I started by attempting to correct a single mistake in the article, that there had not been any independent test, that was immediately deleted. As such a test has been well documented, it was later corrected by another editor.

The comments posted by AndyTheGrump above do not give the flavor, that can only be determined by reading the discussion page. I have restricted myself to facts that could be referenced, not opinion, and sought through discussion to come up with something acceptable. I opened a dispute page but the editors involved declined to participate. Hence, I floated two trial balloons in the talk page. One a direct quote from Engineering News and one that I wrote myself. I referenced the important things but not everything at that stage because I was certain much would be deleted. However I am quite prepared to reference anything I write. I gave the Leonardo Corp address because that is indeed where one can order a 1 MW plant. It is not mythical. It has safety certification. The address would not appear in the introduction to the Wiki article.

There are a number of factual errors in the article and originally half of it was a very negative comment from a blog as source. This has since been moved down the page. This was replaced by a cherry picked piece from a dated Popular Science article that resulted in a misleading conclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but the whole piece is biased in a strongly negative way. There are no offsetting positive comments from equally reliable sources such as NASA and a Nobel Laureate.

AndyTheGrump started by stating I was clueless, presumably because I disagree with his opinion, and has consistently refused to discuss the subject, so it is difficult to correct the erroneous facts or reduce the strong negative bias, including defamation of Rossi's character. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is of course yet a further example of the tendentious soapboxing that Parallel has engaged in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A typical ad hominem response. Parallel (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting your behaviour and your inability to comply with Wikipedia policies here. Pointing out that you have repeated the same pattern of behaviour is not an "ad hominem response". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence of Parallel's problematic behaviour. First, he posts on my talk page, accusing me of posting something that was in fact posted by admin Edison - a warning regarding what Edison read as harassment and a possible threat to out someone. [132], and then, After I'd expressedly asked him not to post on my talk page, Parallel does that, to ask me "what did you do before retiring?" [133] Frankly, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if a block per WP:COMPETENCE is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But you NEVER responded to the message. The very definition of ad hominem Parallel (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel: you're wrong. Is that now an ad hominem? You're simply digging yourself deeper here by your gratuitous lack of understanding of whatever the heck you're talking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if we are being trolled... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Parallel has made only a single edit to the Energy Catalyzer article. It was a modest edit, basically replacing a {{cn}} with what they seem to have thought was a valid reference. I think Parallel was entitled to want to have the appropriateness of that reference discussed. I noticed that Parallel tried to initiate a discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72#Energy Catalyzer. I think they made some valid points there. Parallel's challengers did not choose to reply there.

  I think if Parallel actually has lapsed from some policies, but there is no reason to assume this is a sockpuppet ID , then all those lapses would be forgiveable newbie mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Flagrant and repeated POV pushing is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Threatening people is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Using the expression ad hominem when he obviously has no idea what it means is a “forgivable newbie mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. There is a difference between knowingly inserting bias into article space, and engaging in a talk page discussion where one defends the credibility of one's references. Parallel's sole edit to the article was to replace a {{cn}} with a reference that I accept they thought was a valid reliable source. I don't agree this is POV-pushing. Some challengers have warned him or her of WP:NOTFORUM -- but meanwhile other challengers are telling Parallel why they disagree with them. If all his challengers agree he should quit trying to defend his position, as per WP:NOTFORUM, may I suggest they should stop voicing their disagreement, so they stopped presenting temptations to which Parallel feels a need to respond? How is a newbie going to know whether to pay attention to the WP:NOTFORUM warning, or to the continued counter-arguments that invite more counter-counter-arguments?
  2. None of us are supposed to threaten other contributors. But Parallel responded to the suggestion he or she uttered a threat here, writing, in part: "Hard to believe that you are so biased you didn't recognize that was a rhetorical question to "unsigned" (how the hell would I identify him anyway) who accused Rossi of being a criminal. I therefore asked him how he would like it."

     I accept, at face value, that their comment was a rhetorical question, not a lapse from WP:THREAT.

  3. Yes, Parallel used the term ad hominem without properly understanding it, and continued to misuse the term, without understanding attempts to explain how they were using it incorrectly. Misunderstanding the term ad hominem is pretty common, and forgiveable. I knew one contributor who made over 20,000 edits over the course of their 28 months of participation, and misused the term ad hominem for that entire time. Geo Swan (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Your argument seems to be that the other editors (the ones whose intelligence Parallel insulted) need to let him get the last word. You are attempting to blame the victims for fighting back rather than blaming Parallel for starting trouble. Your argument flies in the face of logic, reason, common sense, and natural law. It is not the victim’s responsibility to submit to bulling it is the aggressor’s (Parallel’s) responsibility to back off. I find your argument insulting.

2. If Parallel had said “How would you like to be tracked down and beaten mercilessly” it would be an obvious threat of violence and not a “rhetorical question”. Just because he threatened to commit libel instead of violence does not change the fact that he made a threat.

3. The fact that he doesn’t understand what ad hominem means is a testament to Parallel’s incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. With regard to insulting people's intelligence -- "two wrongs don't make a right". Parallel should not respond in kind if they feel they are attacked. Other contributors should not respond in kind if they think Parallel attacked them. Neither Parallel or other contributors should insult anyone else simply because they disagree with them. If Parallel is a newbie, then the more experienced contributors should be setting an example of civility. And I am sorry to say I think several of the more experienced contributors fell far short of that.
2. 68.74, isn't the very first edit you made this one, where you wrote: "... his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors." Are you disputing that you, 68.74, asserted Rossi was responsible for "criminal endeavors"? Didn't you strongly imply Parallel was the follower of a criminal? Was the question you are trying to claim was a threat was "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" Since you had just referred to Rossi's "criminal endeavors" I think Parallel was appealing to you to put yourself in Dr. Rossi's shoes -- not making a threat. I think it is pretty clear Parallel is not just a wikipedia newbie, but is also not a world class hacker. Maybe a world class hacker could trace you, just from your IP, without having checkuser permission. I couldn't do it, wouldn't know where to start, even though I have been using computers for decades. I don't believe for a minute that either of us thinks Parallel could do so.
3. WRT misunderstanding the term "ad hominem" -- this is no big deal, and not a cause for sanctions.
4. 68.74, are the comments from Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91 above, also from you? Geo Swan (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind here is this article – Energy Catalyzer – is covered by discretionary sanctions, falling well within the subject area of cold fusion. One of the principle reasons for discretionary sanctions being imposed in this area was the presence of single-topic editors with somewhat...idiosyncratic...views on what might constitute reliable sources, neutral point of view, (un)due weight, or appropriate content for an encyclopedia article, and who wouldn't take 'no' for an answer on article talk pages. These editors adopted a tendentious approach, stonewalling and filibustering on talk pages and gradually driving off editors who advocated for neutral treatment of these topics (in line with the strictures of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE). The discretionary sanctions regime was a necessary tool to curtail otherwise interminable argument on article talk pages from a small subset of individuals who could not or would not accept or understand basic, fundamental Wikipedia content policies.

When an editor proposes that the third paragraph of an article's lede should include a mailing address to place product orders, one has to question whether or not they fully grasp the purpose or role of an encyclopedia. (We'll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that the address appears to be for an apartment building in a residential district.) This is the sort of information that doesn't appear at the top of enyclopedia articles – in Wikipedia, in Britannica, or elsewhere – even for products that verifiably exist, and that actually work.

It strikes me as reasonable that (at a minimum) Parallel should receive a formal caution under the discretionary sanctions rules that his conduct is out of bounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone familiar and interested in the technology of cold fusion; I'm surprised that our coverage in this section is actually out of date; but scientifically instances have been observed, but never as a source of power and never sustained. While the actual fringe overwhelms the actual cases; but bubble fusion and other technologies continue to be covered. Here's a recent news item.[134] I have no idea how to fix this sort of mess, but it seems that fringe editors seem to be winning over real science, or at least for right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would be the same "bubble fusion" whose chief proponent was punished for misconduct, and which has not been mentioned in respected scientific journals since except perhaps as a "fiasco"? I'm not sure how invoking that addresses the incident that has been raised, except perhaps to confirm this is an area as a whole where the WP:FRINGE guidance is particularly useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KfyTopal

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

This person keeps editing Fenerbahçe S.K. (football) into turkish and putting some obvious fake info into player squad. Here are some of the examples:

• [135]
• [136]
• [137]
• [138]

I also belive that the same guy has made this changes with his IP:

• [139]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine time (talk • contribs)

Hasn't really edited since the warning for translating the page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page; if this carries on let me know and I'll block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user Mhazard9 editing as IP user

User:Mhazard9 was blocked for 48 hrs yesterday for edit warring, after being blocked a few weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright tags. Mhazard9 was also blocked twice, in 2010 and 2011, for abusing multiple accounts. They're going for the jackpot now with this edit [140] --editing while blocked, restoring an obvious NFCC violation, long-term edit warring on the article, and an abusive edit summary. The IP's edit history is limited to articles where Mhazard9 is involved in disputes, the edit summaries are distinctly in Mhazard9's style, the edits match Mhazard9's -- in short, the quacking is so deafening that no formal SPI should be necessary. Significant block extension is called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who made the AN3 complaint leading to Mhazard9's current block, I'd also like to register concern. To my knowledge, I've only intersected with Mhazard9 at one article, Pathetic fallacy, where no one has yet undone the changes inflicted by that user. (Although I wasn't anywhere near 3RR myself, I just feel weird about reverting edits other than blatant vandalism when the user who added them is blocked.) My concern stems both from the user's behavior, which included both edit warring and a refusal to communicate, and from the substance of the edits themselves, which led me to muse (to myself) about competency issues or, given the length of time the user has been around, a possible compromised account. (See my diff above. Improper capitalization is the main issue.) Without reviewing the user's earlier contributions more thoroughly, which I have no time for today, I have no idea whether these problems have been ongoing or are new. In any event, block evasion is a serious offense and merits an appropriate response. Rivertorch (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The evidence that this is block evasion is overwhelming. Even before being blocked, Mhazard9 has used the same IP (not logging in) to edit the same articles (at least once in the midst of an edit war at Edward Said), sometimes within hours of each other. I have inceased Mhazard9's block to one month, and I have blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I rolled back the edit and semi'd the article for a couple of days before I read your extension of the block; I might as well leave the protection there, it's not doing any harm and will prevent any obvious IP hopping for a couple of days. I will watchlist, regardless. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Lucia Black

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

---

I'd like to propose a topic ban for Lucia Black targeting Anime, Manga and Video Games. The reason for this proposal is an ongoing pattern of behavior that has stunted growth and development of articles in these catagories.

A - Lucia Black operates as an owner of several key articles in these topics in violation of WP:OWN. Many of the user's revisions stem from his/her personal opinion rather than concensus or RS.

B - Said user often edits tenditiously and makes frequent use of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

C - Said user often makes edits that contain numerous typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. Such errors require time to correct (often in addition to the time required to verify the info edited into a given article).

D - Said user may have ties to notorious sock puppet masters/trolls with whom he/she may be cooperating in order to harrass other editors.

These behaviors have a chilling effect on wikipedia and are responsible for intimidating new users from contributing in a meaningful fashion. In full disclosure, I was a registered, confirmed editor involved in cooperating on the Anime/Manga articles, but felt compelled to leave Wikipedia due to harrassment from Lucia Black. I have since abandoned that account and am nervous about disclosing who I was due to the possibility of on and off wiki harrassment in retaliation. She repeatedly reverted additions with little or no real justification and has accused me of being a troll.

I'm not sure if it is the nature of the topics, but perhaps it might be best if Lucia Black were given a break and encouraged to edit other topics.

User has been notified. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A brand new user account arrives to propose a topic ban? Quite clearly either an invalid WP:CLEANSTART or as a minimum an improper alternate account as an attempt to distract attention from their regular account. I'm sorry, I can AGF for days, but not for something like this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've AGF'd at all. I have never been banned or blocked. My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user. I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of being in cahoots with the above mentioned user. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- A) You need to show diffs that demonstrate this behaviour. B) Ditto. C) This problem seems to be related to Lucia Black's editing in general, not specific to anime and manga, therefore a topic ban will not solve it. D) Unsubstantiated innuendo. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to show the diffs if someone can walk me through how to use the coding involved (I've never done so before). if you bear with me, I'll post them. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Diff - take note in particular of the section 'Linking to a diff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, you might want to check out TheSyndromeOfaDown apparently had communication with her on her/his talk page (since deleted, but the deleting admin can provide a copy Writ Keeper reverted it on 3 June 2013).Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the thing I revdeled had nothing to do with Lucia Black. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support as proposer Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevent Diffs

[141] - example of ownership

[142] - example of tenditious editing

[143] - overt hostility

[144] - WP:HOUNDING

Also, take a look at the pervious two AN/I topics focusing her (one is at AN/I archive 798). Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this editor is ChrisGualtieri, I have had it with this destructive behavior of this user. The first link shows absolutely no sign of WP:OWN. The other 2, this editor is involved and has been hostile and poison the discussion. Why else would this editor need to make an alternate account out of fear?

Also, this editor isnt afraid of me because of my hostility, its because of my wrongfully ban that in which if I bring it up to the highest power in wiki, will see a bunch of inconsistencies and will get this editor blocked too for his poisoning.

Idk why some user would feel the need to be a sock just to get a third opinion known. I smell conspiracy against me. I would NEVER use a sock. And I would never need to make one just to prove my point.

I cant bring links, but I have witnesses directly involved with ChrisGualtieri who can provide links for me and verify his destructive behaviour.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia stop being trolled. It clearly isn't me and your personal attacks are wearing thin. Admins, please check the revdel versions of my talk page.[145] I do not know their content, but I suppose it may be enlightening if the edits of User:KuroiNekoko-chan aren't.[146] Considering the last history the SPI will be obvious and I'm going to cross-post this. Not sure where the obsession comes from but Jonathan Yip made clear an effort to focus on both of us in the rev del from KuroiNekoko-chan's last talk comments. This trolling is really lame. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Close and SPI please - I have zero interest in Anime, nor familiarity with the names above but "My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user." = "I created a new sock to get back at an editor, but I'm not telling you who I am"? ..... surely this ANI should closes here and next should be an SPI, shouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...im far too tired for this stuff. How am j suppose to know when a sock is coming up.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I object to many instances of how she handles herself in discussions, there is no way this warranted. She does good work when she's not tied up with arguing with people. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is at SPI. I just posted the evidence there. Sorry, I've had a rough day and I come home to this. And Lucia, don't take it seriously, that's the intent. I'm going to watch this, but work on a few things in the mean time. But just to be clear, this "topic ban" thing is nonsense, Lucia does good work at WP:ANIME and has opened up to the community; I intend to back her in her efforts; past issues are as good as forgotten. Though let's end this "topic ban" with a snow close just to make sure its not taken seriously in the future; even if the nominator is not a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chibi Kusanagi is confirmed as a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Weatherbell at Joe Bastardi

User:Weatherbell has been used to delete sourced material at Joe Bastardi. WeatherBell is the name of the company where Mr. Bastardi works. It may be Mr. Bastardi himself. . . Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he edited only twice and was reverted both times. He hasn't edited in a couple of days. I blocked him for his user name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration

At Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration there is a petition gathering signatures. I'm posting this to ANI as a good-faith attempt to put these people in touch with the closest people I can think of who count as "the Wikipedia administration". Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Carrrr

I'm not really sure what to do with this. All of this user's edits over the past few months have been to amass some sort of index on his user page. I bounced it back there a couple of months ago after he tried to turn it into a WP project page, but that's all they've been working on since then. It's pretty evident that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but I have no idea what would be an appropriate course of action here. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see two alternatives:

* take the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, or

* ignore it.

(No prizes for guessing which path I support.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

8i347g8gl

This person is intent on adding material which is obviously inappropriate, and has restored his edits each time they have been removed. He does not interact at the talk page despite several invitations. This is the old section and this is the new section. The talk page has a sample of bizarre quotes so you don't have to read it all. He appears to be doing original work, citing scientific papers while making "God" and "morphogenetic field" connections on his own. E.g. "The gravitoelectric field (God) is also known as the quantum potential." Tahknis (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week (edit warring, disruption, repeated OR). I suggest you try and engage him on his talkpage during the block, to see if you can at least get some sort of discussion underway. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Greg Bahnsen

This article has been vandalized for years, and been protected on-and-off for the same period of time. The vandalism is usually the same edit. Is there no better solution than the current pattern of waiting for the vandal to hit, revert, report, protect the article from anon editing for a short time, block offending IP address for a short time. Can we please just block anon editing on this article, period? --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worthy of this board. This is kind of lame. And, of course, it seems to all stem from a "British Isles" thing.[147] Lucky guess. Doc talk 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest indef block IP per WP:NOTHERE. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Doc talk 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The rest of that sentence doesn't belong anyway, regardless of the name. I've removed it, semi-protected the article for a month, and will watchlist it. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Long term, persistent personal attacks, uncivil behavior and battleground mentality by User:Baboon43

User:Baboon43 has consistently displayed uncivil behavior with other editors. This is the second run-in I've had with him and he appears to be trying to instigate some sort of an argument - almost by his own admission. For the sake of brevity, I will not include much about his various edit warring and personal attacks on Talk:Al-Ahbash and other pages, or the various conspiracy theories he tries to promote on various articles. Regardless, this will be long and I am sorry for that - but this is ongoing and there's no way to even partially grasp what editing with Baboon43 is like without quite a bit of detail (and this is still only a small glimpse).

If you don't want to read all the long subcategories

Baboon43 has a long history of combative behavior on talk pages, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and has engaged in clear personal attacks on numerous occasions. He deserves a clear warning from the community.

Past infractions - multiple accounts, edit warring

While it isn't directly relevant to Baboon's harassment of me specifically, it is relevant to note his history of infractions. He was blocked for the first time for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts in March 2012. Then in April that same year, Baboon43 reported two other editors at the noticeboard here and here; the result was that it boomeranged back onto him and HE was blocked, along with one of the editors he reported. Finally, Baboon43 attempted to once again report another user on the 3RR noticeboard here this March (just three months ago) which resulted in another boomerang with a final warning for Baboon43 and the others involved. The point of this isn't to throw mud on the wall; it's to demonstrate that the user does have a history of combative behavior with others, so this isn't out of the ordinary.

Prejudice/bigoted remarks

Back in February, Baboon43 opposed inclusion of Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as a source in Wahhabi movement because a Saudi prince donated to it. According to Baboon43, the prince is a wahhabi merely because, as it appears, he's Saudi. When I expressed my shock at such comments, Baboon43 accused me of being either a Wahhabi or misinformed.

During the course of our most recent exchange, Baboon43 attempted to claim Wahhabism (a Saudi Arabian movement) and Deobandism (an Indian movement) are one and the same, using the actual expression "they are guilty by association." While he obviously isn't trying to be intentionally inflammatory, the comments are quite prejudiced as Baboon43 has expressed many times his belief that all Wahhabi people are inherently violent, which in and of itself is pretty bad. Now he's saying that these two movements are one and the same based on guilt by association. I don't think much elaboration is needed here; it isn't block-worthy by any means, but it does deserve a reprimand from the community and it also demonstrates the difficulties many editors face when working alongside Baboon43. Please read on, though.

Aggressive/rude edit summaries

When I edited an article to better reflect what was in the given source back in January, Baboon43 reacted by reverting my edit without explanation and against the source and accusing me of hounding him. When I explained to him on his talk page that such language is unacceptable as is edit warring against what's available in the given source, he erased my comment saying "take your own advice." It's his right to erase what he wants on his talk page but the comment shows that Baboon43 was absolutely unwilling to work things out.

Uncivil tone when discussing editing disputes

Starting again in January, Baboon43 attempted to use what we later realized was a Wikipedia fork to prove a point (which was ultimately found to be contrary to the actual reliable sources). That's alright, but in the course of discussion his responses began including battle ground-type remarks such as "your whole argument has been debunked...regardless of what you think" and accusing me of belonging to some relgious reform movement in India because I disagreed with him that the movement (Deobandi) are all "wahhabis" as he describes them.

Seeming to try and provoke others

Most recently, Baboon43 appears to be trying to provoke me into some sort of a flame war on Talk:Barelvi. After making some edits, explaining my rationale preemptively and requesting community feedback, he expressed a difference of opinion in a polite manner; I was delighted, actually. As the discussion progressed, Baboon43 made the aforementioned bigoted comment regarding two religious movements and I expressed my confusion; aside from being a bad thing to say, he didn't seem to be making any suggestions about editing the article and I reminded him that talk pages aren't for chatting. With no escalation, he attacked me personally, accusing me of false rambling and POV pushing without stating why. This upset me because he's harassed me and others like this before, so I told him point blank: if he doesn't either support his accusations or take them back, I would go to ANI. His reaction was to simply accuse me of POV pushing again without proof and that I should "halt the ignorance." I then surmised that a user banned with sockpuppetry who was close with Baboon43 but is now topic banned from commenting on the article's talk space may have asked him to "monitor" my edits; paranoid, but I believe the admin and other users involved can testify that my paranoia is at least partially justified. Baboon43 then accused me of spreading misinformation in a seemingly pointless comment as it didn't relate to article content, at which point I very directly asked him for diffs to prove my misinformation and POV pushing before we come to ANI. Once again, he just accused me of POV pushing without any actual evidence and hence I am here at ANI.

Proposed solution: final warning for personal attacks

As mentioned above, Baboon43 is already on a final warning because of edit warring and 3RR violations. I propose that he also receive a final warning for personal attacks, as this behavior has repeated itself. I also think that the final warning should be placed on his talk page. He's obviously free to archive or remove it, but it will still be in the talk page history. I also invite others who have dealt with this before to chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as the one making the suggestion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support but after such final warnings, something other than warnings ought to be done. Faizan 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)