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

User refusing to notify authors when tagging their articles for speedy

69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of patrolling new pages - yet as far as I can tell, they have never notified an author of the fact that one of their articles has been nominated for speedy deletion. (Anyone who wants to can feel free to check.) I've left them a number of template messages about it (probably too many, but I was hoping they would get the point), then an actual note about it [1], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [2]. They then stopped altogether for quite a while, but today I was going through the new pages log and ran across a few articles they had tagged (most now deleted). I feel bad bringing this to ANI, since they contribute good work in other areas, but their continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as well as responses like this (repeated a number of times) shows that they don't have any plan to change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD, a Wikipedia policy, states, "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion...should notify the page creator and any major contributors." It's puzzling why the user is reticent to do this. Moreover, they were previously asked to notify article creators, and the IP received two suggestions to consider creating an account so that they could use Twinkle, which would have nipped the "notify page creator" issue in the bud. The corresponding conversation is confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification isn't mandatory or the policy would say "must" instead of "should". If this was part of a pattern of other behaviors, you might have a case, but if this is the only problem, I can't see a basis for admin action. It has been debated over the years, but suffice it to say that policy will likely never say "must". As Cyphiodbomb points out, notification is easier with Twinkle, but even Twinkle has the option to not notify the article creator, and in Twinkle preferences you can change the default to NOT notify. But yes, I think it is kind of rude to not notify, there just isn't anything in the admin tool kit I can use to "fix" it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis has said it all. As long as notification is not mandatory there's nothing we can do to enforce it. That said, I agree that it is uncooperative to not inform content creators of speedy deletions. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis is correct, it's not required, so... it's not required. "Should" is not "must", and should not be read as such. If anything I'd say the barrage of template messages to an IP user is a greater sin than their not doing something optional. It's clear that they've read and understood your message, so there's no need to keep at it. As far as I can tell, their tagging is being done in good faith and their accuracy is reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really reads the CSD templates. It would be much better for newbies if you could write your own reason why you are speedy-tagging the article, and for A7/A9/A11 particularly, apologise that it was for the encyclopedia's own good and suggest userfying or AfC as an alternative. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a longterm supporter of the idea of putting an obligation on those who tag article for deletion to inform the author, OK there are some exception one should make, but the current situation allows for biting newbies by deleting their articles without any dialogue. However that would require a policy change, and I'm loathe to change policy by criticising those who follow it, if you want to change policy file an RFC, don't take people to the drama boards for following a policy that you disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While "should" does not mean "shall", it is a stronger term than "may". Some time ago I read an explanation of this as applied to law, specifically in the context of traffic rules. A driver "shall" stop at a red signal, and "should" slow when approaching such signal; that the motorist did not slow before coming to a stop at a red signal does not mean they are, as a matter of law, not responsible for the guy who rear-ended them. In much the same sense, I argue that this should be our approach here; if this IP is not notifying when they "should" be, the IP should be subject to some sanction. Should means something that is normally followed unless there's some rational reason not to follow it (in this case, e.g., the editor is banned). I would go so far as to argue that when we use "shall" or "must" in our guidance documents, we're describing policy; and when we use "should", we're describing a guideline. Of course, it should be confirmed that this language is actually descriptive of the current practice (I really think it is: it's so rare to see someone not notify the author). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would go further: while disagreeing with WereSpielChequers - there are perfectly good reasons for not leaving a user message - but consistently failing to do so, even after repeated advice and reminders, constitutes disruptive behaviour. As such the account/IP is susceptible to indef blocking to prevent disruption to the project. They need to either start working with in community norms when CSD tagging, or stop CSD tagging (or of course, demonstrate a good reason to establish new norms). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

I mostly agree with Rich. I wrote this when De72 was the latest replied, abandoned it due to EC and being unsure if it'll be helpful but I'll post it now. While there's no simple admin action that can be taken, the fact that the guideline or policy says should rather than must or similar doesn't mean that the editor can't be sanctioned by the community for disruption. I don't know much about the development of the speedy deletion guidelines but I imagine there are a number of reasons why it's not mandatory. For example there are probably cases when it makes no sense to notify, and similarly if someone does one or two clearly legitimate speedy deletions every 3 years it's likely not worth worrying whether or not they notify the creators.

Remember there are plenty of other cases where the guideline says shall or should or whatever for similar reasons, it doesn't mean a person persistently refusing to do so even when most people feel they should isn't disruptive. (In other cases like here at ANI, the harm that comes from not notifying is accepted to outweigh the time wasted etc from people being force to notify even when it makes little sense so we do specify it 'must' be done.)

In this particular case, beyond the request from the OP which seems to have been removed (which is the IP's right), I see plenty of requests from others. So the OP's already been repeatedly asked. And replies suggestion something has to be spelled out as mandatory in some guideline or policy somewhere before you will follow resonable requests by your fellow wikipedians is rarely a sign of someone who is collobrating with good community spirit.

So you could try an RFC. Heck considering how many requests there has already been, you could even consider a topicban without an RFC if it's really merited. Whether any of that is merited or likely to suceed I can't say so I know to little about the case and history here. (Although the fact there's a template makes me suspect it may be disruptive.) Of course, if the editor involved is reading this hopefully they reconsider and none of it is necessary whatever the case.

I know some people will complain about a lack of clarity but remember that to some extent it's intended to be that way as wikipedia operates per WP:NOTBURO etc. For example, WP:SIG doesn't actually say you must sign. But it does say if you persistently refuse to sign that may be seen as disruptive and even that's fairly new [3] and people got in to trouble for persistently refusing to sign before it was explicit in the policy.

Similarly while the policy does try to outline what's allow and not allowed in signatures and is fairly explicit about a lot of stuff now, there are obviously grey areas or probably even stuff which just isn't mentioned. Yet if someone has a signature which seems disruptive to many with decent explainations of why, wikilawyering over whether it's actually forbidden by policy doesn't generally go well.

And you can come up with plenty of other examples. E.g. while I don't know what the guidelines or policies actually say, I'm pretty sure there's none which say 'you must leave edit summaries'. At most they may say something like WP:SIG i.e. persistent refusal to leave edit summaries even when asked is likely to be seen as disruptive which is definitely how edit summaries are treated.

Ultimately what it comes down to as I hinted earlier is if a lot of people are asking you to do something and willing to give good reasons if you ask, you'd better either do so or have good reasons not to do so. As I also said, arguing that you aren't doing it because it isn't required is normally a bad sign.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have never notified any user of any deletion discussion that I have ever initiated. If someone is interested enough in an article or an image or what have you, well, that is why we have watch lists. No one owns articles, thus there is no special status bestowed upon creators or primary contributors. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally do notify users, but I could see it as absolutely pointless if there's no chance the article is going to be improved (except in cases of db-vand, in which case the user needs to be warned). Not all new users understand what a watchlist is or how to use it. I could cite WP:CIR for that (and agree with it in many cases), but I could also cite WP:BITE in turn. I've also found that when there's notification, the page author usually goes to the nominator with their questions, complaints, or personal attacks instead of the deleting admin (for better or worse) so there's a workload distribution consideration. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same as Ian.thomson about new users and watchlists. Newly created articles, in particular, can sometimes be improved or userfied rather than deleted. Not many editors will have a new article on their watchlists, and if the most interested editor isn't notified, this will only happen if one of the regular Csd and Afd watchers/participants happen to be interested. On the other hand, some articles, particularly promotional ones, have been dropped off by single-purpose editors who haven't edited since, and there may be little point in notifying them. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said above, by itself, not notifying isn't strong enough to sanction because policy doesn't demand it. Combined with other actions, it can demonstrate disruptive editing, obviously, but there it would be a symptom of a larger offense. The policy is vague for a reason, to allow us to look at each situation. ie: WP:BURO One of the problems with forcing notification (other than sometimes it makes no sense) is that for IPs to notify, they must do so manually, as TW doesn't work for IPs. In a perfect world, it would be great if everyone notified, but policy isn't likely to change, and I don't see anyone getting blocked for failure to notify if that is their only "crime". In fact, I would oppose a block based solely on not notifying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But the obvious question is why you believe policy has to explicitly require something to allow some sort of community imposed sanction even if the editor refuses to abide by multiple requests from the community. As I pointed out above, there are plenty of cases e.g. signing posts or edit summary where policy doesn't demand people do something all the time, and in the past policy and guidelines didn't even explicitly mention the possibility of sanction, yet it existed nevertheless precisely because of WP:NOTBURO and similar requirements. While additional disruption may make sanction more likely, it's never a requirement if existing action is sufficiently disruptive.

Also, I think most people agree with you that we should be looking at each situation and there may be a reason for the policy to be worded as it is. I admit I haven't looked that closely at the precise situation here. On the other hand, what I have seen suggests that the OP isn't really making any judgement call on whether it's worth notifying, it sounds like they're refusing to notify point blank because it isn't required.

Of course I could easily be wrong, and it would be great if the IP would clarify that I am and if I am I apologise to the IP wholeheartedly. But if I'm not, then I don't see how the situation helps. (The only exception may be if all the IP's cases are ones where notifying was probably pointless and unnecessary even if they didn't actually have any particular reason to think so.)

I should mention that I don't think the slight additional work for notification is particularly relevant. I don't do many deletions but I nearly always notify and don't use Twinkle or any other such tools. The added time it takes to notify compared to the deletion in the first place isn't that much (unlike say notifying when you revert vandalism). Further while it's the IPs right to edit without registering, they also have to accept the limitations and added requirements thereof and can't resonably expect to ignore community norms because of them.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should sanction the IP, or anyone, for persistently refusing to notify. Rather what I am saying is we should be looking at whether such refusal is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action instead of worrying about whether it's required by policy.

BTW as I said above I don't see any reason to talk about a block. The most logical course of action since we only have a problem in one particular area is to topic ban the IP from speedy deletions (or any deletions) if they persistently refuse to notify without a good reason. Of course as with all topic bans, it will need to be enforced by a block if the IP doesn't abide by it, but hopefully it would never come to that.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to how you read policy, and how important you view notifications. Another admin may feel differently, but I don't ever see me blocking someone for the singular problem of not notifying editors. You can't compare this to refusing to sign posts, which affects ever viewer of that discussion and frankly, isn't done unless it is combined with other intentionally disruptive behavior. Not notifying CSDs is rude, but it isn't strictly against policy, and if a local discussion !votes to block someone for something that is not against policy, I would of course protest as that is against the larger consensus here. You educate, you encourage, you can even bitch and moan, but you don't sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the editor to comment here before tagging any more articles for deletion, as I think it's necessary that we hear his or her perspective before resolving this. Personally, I believe that notifying editors whose articles are nominated for deletion is important—with the exception of obviously frivolous, vandalistic, or harassing articles that the creator wouldn't reasonably expect to remain a part of Wikipedia. Editors whose pages are nominated for speedy are likely to be new editors; having an early attempt at article-writing speedied must be demoralizing enough, without the deletion occurring without even a notification or an opportunity to try to improve the article. I ask that the thread not be closed until we've heard from the IP editor, or at least given him or her a chance to respond to my request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting silly. They've already stated that they're not doing it because it isn't required. And they're right, it isn't. If you find that an affront to all that is good in the world, then lobby to get it changed. Demanding an IP (who,again, has broken no rule) come here and re-state their already stated position so you can make them dance for you is getting appallingly close to abuse of power on your part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP is presumably unaware of the number of people concerned by his or her approach to this issue. By being asked to post here, his or her attention will be drawn to that fact, and I would like to see if it has any effect, as opposed to "I won't do it because it's not required and you can't make me." And I don't understand your last comment; requesting that someone do something is not invoking any sort of "power" at all, much less abusing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly if it's such trouble for people to notify, why can't we have a bot do it? If a speedy sits around for more than 5 minutes with no notification (or deletion), give one. Or find a way to handle it through Echo if feasible. I think Wikipedia should be doing more, not less, to make our processes accessible to the unfamiliar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• That makes too much sense. And I'm sure Echo could also handle it. It tells us all about reverts, which may or may not be wise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Having a bot do it would effectively make it mandatory, when right now it's explicitly not mandatory (in the sense that it must always be done). I do take "should" to mean that it should usually be done depending on the circumstances (RFC 2119), i.e. that it can't be ignored at whim, but there is room for judgement and discretion. Basically along the lines of Nil Einne's post. Anyway it seems to me 69.181.253.230 is editing in an obnoxious way that a techno-fix such as a bot isn't going to help. So I have a dim view of the bot suggestion. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really. It just takes you out of the equation. That an editor can't be arsed to notify the other editor is one thing: I can live with that. That an editor thinks the other editor generally deserves no notification is something quite different, and an attitude that in my opinion cuts directly against our civility pillar. Now, if people want to opt out, as they do with auto-signing and the like, totally fine. Same deal with Echo notifications. But notification of these things is important: it's common that the "you were on notice and just kept editing" argument comes up here and at DRV when someone comes back a month later complaining that "their article" was deleted. As I say, there are valid circumstances when someone shouldn't receive a notice. 90+% of CSDs do not fit those circumstances. At any rate, before any such change is undertaken, I think it would be nice if someone could run some statistics... checking for just how many CSDs in a given period don't result in notices, and perhaps other factors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Mendaliv: I love that idea... so much, that I've formally proposed it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• We have to remember that there are always 2 elements at play: policy instruments and community norms. The relavent policy or guideline may suggest that notification is optional, but if community norms suggest that notification is in most cases a requirement, then the community element trumps policy/guidelines. Take for example when some elements the signature guidelines were treated as de facto policy when the violations were significant enough to annoy the community. We appear to now be in that type of situation: the IP has been advised that community norms say to notify: if they continue to refuse to do so, then action can be taken the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I have to disagree with your statement in the general sense. Community norms are supposed to be documented in policy in order to be enforceable. To block someone solely based on a claim of "community norms" is opening a huge door, ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Dennis, WADR to the spririt of fairness in which you wrote that, it's really supposed to be the other way around--policy pages are supposed to document existing practice that in turn develops through consensus discussions. So in principle we shouldn't even be allowed to write a policy saying "people who do X get blocked" until there have been multiple occurences of people doing X and getting blocked by consensus (under some umbrella principle like disruptive editing), with enough points in common that we can abstract from them. Usually in the course of such discussions the offender has plenty of opportunity to say "I thought X was fine, but I see it's not being accepted, so I'll stop" and not get blocked. That is enough to avoid most of the abuses you're worried about. We have a much worse problem of abusive blocks in the current over-codified, wikilawyered, and easily gamed bureaucracy than we did under the "use common sense" system. Re the bot proposal: there are cases such as spam and attack pages where notifying the person is probably counterproductive. It's not a matter of being too lazy. Plus we already have too many bots crowding out the humans. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Sometimes we need to make a policy decision because we have differing views as to what the policy should be, that's how we eventually hammered out the BLPprod process. It seems clear to me that we have a lot of editors in this discussion who would agree that the norm should be to inform, though as I said earlier "there are some exception one should make". But we have at least one editor above who sees little point in informing editors. It may be that if we went to a full RFC that we'd find that there was more support for the status quo than we have here. It might also be that there would be consensus for changing the rules but no consensus as to the change that we should make. I would assume that the exceptions where there was no point informing people would include: People who have now been banned, have a retirement flag up, have been indef blocked for creating this sort of article and a talkpage already strewn with deletion messages, and Author requested deletions. In my view this is a judgment issue, and could be accommodated by wording such as "When tagging pages for speedy deletion don't forget to inform the person who created the page (though use your judgement as there are some circumstances where doing so is inappropriate)." But if we have consensus that tagging newbie created articles for deletion without informing them is a form of Newbie biting, then we should change the policy to deprecate that for the future. As for the idea that policy change should follow the norm, that's fine for consensus based decisions such as at AFD; if we can show that whenever a particular scenario comes to AFD the consensus is always to delete then it probably makes sense to add that scenario to the CSD criteria. But here we have a situation where a few editors, and I have encountered several over the years, believe that not informing editors is a valid position within policy because "should is not must". I don't think that we should change that situation by telling such editors that should means usually and they are being disruptive, I think we should change that situation by getting consensus for a change to policy. ϢereSpielChequers 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I support having a bot do this, and taking the responsibility out of the hands of the nominators entirely. A nominator can still leave a message if they want to provide some expanded reasoning to the original author. bd2412 T 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Community norma, like all policies and guides, can be established by informal as well as informal consensus. That one regular editor disagrees is not proof that the norm doesn't exist; it's on the contrary good evidence that the particular editor is not following the norms of the rest of the community, and a very strong argument that the editor should change their practices. That goes as much for the established editor who commented that they never notify as for the ip editor under discussion here. I consider that the practice falls under the general policy of encouraging new editors, a policy so basic that it's been assumed without being written, as it is obvious that without this, the encyclopedia cannot survive. It also falls under the explicit Deletion policy that deletion is the last resort, which implies that every article be given a chance for improvement.
• We could establish this as a rule without making a bot: we could require the use of Huggle in making deletions , and remove the option to not notify the editor, except when the reason is vandalism. We could also use a bot, and the bot has the advantage that we could in the future expand the notifications to not just the creator but the most recent substantial editor (or otherwise, as experience will show us.) Personally, I'd rather do one or another than try to penalize established editors for not following unwritten but well understood policy, and the reason is that it's a better environment not to challenge each other on such a direct basis if it can be avoided. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, I remember a visiting a co-worker in another office. He showed me a new office policy about how periodicals should be circulated. He saw my puzzlement that a senior partner would spend so much time crafting a policy. Were there really that many employees who didn't know how to forward a magazine? He brought me down to one office, which was stacked high with unforwarded magazines. The point being that the senior person in charge didn't have the guts to tell the one offending employee what to do, and spent far too much time crafting an office-wide policy, just to deal with one person (who, ironically, was ignoring the policy).

I don't want to make it mandatory, because I can think of exceptions. However, if someone refuses to do the polite thing, simply because it isn't mandatory, perhaps we should pass a narrow rule - 69.181.253.230 is required to notify, unless they include a edit summary with a reason for not doing the notification. (We aren't bound by the US Constitution, so it is OK that this might be viewed as a Bill of attainder.) Far too much valuable time has been spent on this, I appreciate that the IP is mostly contributing in a positive way, but time to cut the Gordian Knot.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rich Farmbrough and Nil Einne that notification should be mandatory, or that it simply be done by bot. The "exceptions" make zero sense. We do not have such limited bandwidth or server space that it is bad to add yet another notice to the talk age of a banned or retired editor. On the other hand, considerable harm is done to the retention of new editors when their first article is stealthily and sneakily deleted without any notice, taking away their ability to explain on the article's talk page that sources exist to support notability. Ignoring something you "should" do, when you have been repeatedly asked to comply, can amount to disruptive editing and can lead to being blocked from editing, as happened with an editor who refused to properly sign his posts. One or two regular editors not liking something is not always an adequate bar against it being the consensus. Edison (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it isn't mandatory. It doesn't take much extra time to notify the user, and it at least allows for that user to contest the speedy deletion. So pretty much what some of the users above have said. Dustin (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

One reason for not making it mandatory—one new editors misunderstood our rules about copyright and generated dozens of articles with problems. Some editors were simply adding a full template for every one, but I and another editor agreed we should leave one notice, followed by a post with a simple list of all other examples. The mandatory rule would have left the editor with a sea of notices, not a welcome sight.

I'll grant that if this is the only exception, it may not be worth considering, and maybe it should be mandatory, but the question has come up before, and rejected, so I am guessing there are other legitimate exceptions.

I will repeat, it seems like a poor use of resources to ask a community to make something mandatory to deal with a single user. Better to address the single editor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely isn't just a single user. I have encountered at least a couple of others who do this including one whose argument is "there should be a bot that does that". As for exemptions, user blanked G7s seem an obvious one to me, and whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that it shouldn't bother us if a banned user gets deluged with lots of these messages, it certainly bothers me if it happened to a retired user. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of speedies, ISTM that speedying a file that's under deletion discussion, especially where valid reasons have been given to keep, AND there has been a prior restoration, is contrary to policy. The conditions of F8 were not met. Should the admin be admonished for deletion out of process? I didn't participate in the 14 Jun deletion discussion, but I was referred to in it. I'd like to see it restored and tagged with {{Keep local}}. There seem to be several involved users ignorant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Useful_articles.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 00:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Completely unrelated to this thread. Ask the admin or go to WP:DRV or something. Ansh666 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.

Article: Oathkeeper

Involved Section(s): Oathkeeper#Writing

Issue(s): Edit-Warring, tendentious editing, and possibly something worse

Editor Being Reported: Darkfrog24

Background:

After almost a month and a half of mediation, RfC'ing and a virtual maze of walls o' text, a narrow consensus emerged with regards to the incorrect usage of the primary source of a book to note chapters used within an episode of the Game of Thrones tv series. Darkfrog24 (and, to a lesser extent, Diego Moya) insisted that a primary source could be used to extrapolate what chapters were used in the episode. A majority of others equally insisted that this constituted synthesis, and others still argued that, since reviews from secondary sources didn't bother mentioning the chapter-episode relationships with such precision, that doing so was trivial. After the RFC, matters seemed to calm down and the article was stable without the book reference.

Issue:

Darkfrog returned to the article and began re-adding the primary reference again, and continued to add it when removed several times. Darkfrog then lashed out at other editors (myself one of them) several times. She added three distinct, secondary sources. One of them, appears to be a user-created article(io9's Observation Deck) which contains information about the chapters from the book used within the television series, without being specific as to what chapter appeared in what article. There also appears to be some concern that Observation Deck contains user-created articles. Damned odd, but I could simply be misinterpreting

The second source, however, is what brought me here. In the first paragraph of the anonymous news article, the precise information Darkfrog24 sought to add appears. Fortuitous? I'd say yes, but then I started to note some inconsistencies, such as the fact that the source, PANow.com, allows for independently-written articles. The source wasn't written by a staff writer at the site (I confirmed this by contacting them to ask who wrote the article). Additionally, PANow is a user-driven site.

Concern:

Darkfrog has run into problems before here (1, 2) and at 3RR (3, 4). Despite this, I am not sure if I want to believe that Darkfrog24 would create a source within user-space sites to directly support her position in an article. That seems like overkill, but we all know that this has happened elsewhere, with other (former) contributors. Maybe its happening here.

Had it not been for the precise wording of the second article in explicit support of her very specific edit, I probably would have just thought her very good at research and very lucky.

I am not so sure its luck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have heard back from PANow with regards to the second source. It was added to the Classified Section of their Business Directory, and quite recently, too. It seems odd that an episode aired back in April would, within the last week, generate a spcifically-worded review that assists an editor. I call shenanigans. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That PANow page seems to be gone, with a 404 error. -- Atama頭 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The current issue at hand is that Jack keeps deleting the ref tag citing the novel A Storm of Swords in an article about an episode of the TV show based on that book [4].

The content in question is now supported by both primary and secondary sources. I do not see why we should not cite both the primary and secondary sources. What is the harm in telling the reader, "Yes, someone also opened the book itself and checked"? As per WP:PRIMARY, the novel itself is a suitable source for straight facts about its own content; the secondary sources are helpful but not necessary. As per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, the primary source is where I actually found the information; I dug up the secondary sources later solely to address Jack and one other person's concerns.

The results of the RfC were not that using a primary source was OR but one contributor argued that the primary source should not, by itself, be used to indicate that the content was non-trivial enough to include in the article; secondary sources were needed to establish this.[5] So I found more secondary sources. Jack deleted one of them without reading it [6][7]. (His summary: "This article doesn't contain that information." My summary: "Yes it does; here are its exact words.") This is not [8] [9], the first [10], second [11] or third [12] time he's done this [13]. Why don't I just go find more sources, you ask? Because Jack has established that it is a waste of my time; he won't read them.

The way I see it, I've addressed all legitimate objections to 1. the inclusion of the material itself and 2. the inclusion of the tag citing the novel. It's time to give the delete button a rest.

Every time I meet one of Jack's demands he comes up with a new one that he neglected to mention previously. He claims OR, so I point him toward WP:Primary. When people disagreed with him about the OR issue, he says that the issue wasn't really OR; it was something else. I took the time to dig up precedent articles that use the sources the way I've been using them [14]; and he continued to insist that I just take his interpretation of policy as gospel with no precedent or proof. I found source after source; he deleted the material without bothering to read them and see whether they addressed his concerns. Now he's insinuating that I put out a classified in a newspaper just to have a source for this article. It's an excuse parade.

Frankly, I'd like Jack to put all cards on the table. Disclose all objections to the statement, "This episode was based on chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" so that they can be dealt with. This "Oh, you met one of my demands? Here's a new one from out of my hat!" business has got to go.

I also find it very frustrating to put in the time and effort looking for sources only to have someone call me too lazy to "roll up my sleeves and find sources" in the comments and edit summaries with which he lifts a finger only to hit the delete button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Prince Albert source, it was working last night when I found it. That's why the citation format contains an access date. As for why it contains the same text, it's because that's what I put in the search bar: "Oathkeeper," "Jaime IX" "chapter 72" "Sansa VI," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) EDIT: And I found a working link to the Prince Albert source just now; it's cached: [15]

This isn't the place for content disputes, Darkfrog24. As to the argument that I am somehow hiding my objections to the content, it isn't a new one from the user. I've told her what she needs for inclusion: reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly notes the information she wants to add. She cannot find it, which tells me (and a consensus of others) that few reliable sources feel it important enough to mention. She chooses to ignore this, and insists on using - over multiple editors' objections - the primary source of the book to compare the book to the tv episode. It's this 'I don't like it' and gaming the system on the part of Darkfrog24 that has tied up at least four other editors for almost two months.

Pert of me wants a few editors to point out her misinterpretation of source use, though I know she won't accept it - she hasn't accepted the possibility that she's wrong when others have told her so, I am not sure how to proceed. She creates a toxic work environment, and virtually all work in the article has ceased over her pettifoggery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if this isn't the place for content disputes, then why are you here disputing content? You don't like that I re-added the tag citing the novel. I listed my reasons for re-adding the tag citing the novel, specifically that I have addressed all legitimate complaints against its inclusion. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you should probably read it before you drop its name. It concerns the inclusion or exclusion of articles and facts based solely on whether the user likes them or not. That's not my position in this debate; it's yours. You don't like listing chapters, and you hide behind other claims.

No, Jack, you haven't "told me what I need to know." You've given your own opinion and demanded that I take it as fact. I've shown you WP:PRIMARY, I've shown you precedent articles, and I've shown you source after source that specifically mentions the content in question. If sources were what you really wanted, then you would bother to read them before you hit the delete button. For the fiftieth time, if you want me to believe that you are right and I am wrong, show me something other than your own opinion, as I have shown you more than my own opinion. Show me precedent articles as I have shown you precedent articles. Show me a Wikipedia policy that supports your position as WP:PRIMARY supports mine.

And I must remind you that we are past the secondary source issue. I've provided such sources repeatedly. The issue at hand is that you must stop deleting the tag citing the primary source in addition to the secondary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but toxic work environment? 1. You don't do any work on that article except hitting the delete button. 2. Editors have made changes to other parts of the article with no trouble during our arguments. Do you think perhaps the edits on "Oathkeeper" have slowed down because it's no longer a recent episode? 3. I'm not the one tossing insults left and right. That's you, Jack. No one else, not DonQ, not myself, not DonIago, not Bal, not any of the other participants insulted or patronized other participants, just you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not going to debate content with you, Darkfrog. While I totally get your tactic here (best defense being a better offense), this complaint is about your behavior. Not mine, yours.

Several editors have removed material that you continue to add, often in violation of 3RR. You misinterpret Wikipedia's sourcing policy as "interpretation", preferring to insert your own, novel take on it. You argued this view all the way through DRN. You argued all the way through RfC. You were shown a consensus contrary to what you wanted, and so you ignored it.

It is true that I do not suffer people who try to game the system gladly, and I'll call a spade a spade. Maybe that isn't the smoothest course of action, but Assuming Good Faith does not mean ignoring bad behavior. If you don't want to be called on that bad behavior, do not exhibit it.

If you want to resolve this matter, here is what you need to do:

1. stop adding sources in defiance of not only the consensus but of our own policies and guidelines.
2. stop adding crap secondary sources that are - at the very best - suspect. Don't open yourself to allegations of creating fake references in support of your position, and
3. when you find good references, provide accurate portrayal as to their content.

That's it. As I've told you at DRN, RfC and the talk page a score of times, if your do that, we would have no problem. So long as you keep up the I don't like/get it and the addition of inappropriate sources, you are going to keep running into problems with me and other editors.

You've asked why I don't contribute more. Its because of thick-headed, thin-skinned difficult editors like you that sour me on contributing. So, when I call it a toxic environment, I do so with cause. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who got drawn into this for awhile and has tried to claw his way out since, the phrase, "Kill us both, Spock!" comes to mind. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps if both parties involved could allow other people to get a word in, rather than constantly bickering, then this issue would have been resolved already. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire dispute seems to stem from the inclusion of a primary source in conjunction with several secondary sources to support a particular statement? The statement itself is not being disputed? The spirit of our verifiability/RS policies is to ensure that statements on WIkipedia are adequately supported by external sources. If the accuracy of the statement is properly supported and is not in question, bickering about the use of an additional source to support the statements appear to be extremely petty. Regardless this is a content dispute and does not appear to be actionable - however @Jack Sebastian:, I'd like to remind you that calling editors "thick-headed, thin-skinned" is not appropriate. —Dark 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not incredibly familiar with how the dispute originated (nor do I particularly care at this point, and I think the debate has moved past that point), but the way I would read the situation is that the consensus among the involved editors was that secondary sources are needed to establish the significance/non-triviality of the assertions of the statements; it went beyond mere verifiability. That said, the RfC was never officially closed (and at this point I'd recommend that be handled by an admin), so any claims that there is a consensus are possibly being skewed by editor bias.

However, I would agree with your other points. Both of the above editors seem more interested in having a duel of words than in reaching (or possibly abiding by) a consensus, to the point that I suspect editors who might have weighed in on the discussion have opted not to get involved.

In any case, I think the content issues have been resolved with the exception of a formal closure. I feel the recent editing on the article merits scrutiny to determine whether Jack or Darkfrog have been making inappropriate changes, but hopefully it would suffice to introduce them both to trouts whales and advise them to find other ways to focus their energies (an interaction ban may be warranted). Personally I'm done with the whole situation (I don't even watch Game of Thrones), but would like to see the page-warring ended one way or another.

Anyway, I'm happy to offer what input I can as a party that got involved in this and has an opinion on the content dispute but is largely neutral with regards to the particular editors involved and the conduct matters. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doniago here was the one who suggested that we use secondary sources as a measuring stick for determining whether the content was non-trivial enough to include. So I found some. Then I found more. Of course I re-added the content; the objections to it had been dealt with. As for restoring the tag citing the novel itself, again, of course we should also cite the novel. I don't understand why Jack isn't putting this in the win column. I did what he kept saying he wanted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, are you seriously blaming me for your decision to toss out baseless accusations? Don't flip things around just because I found a source that supports content that you don't like. As for toxicity, I have read and listened to every point you made. I just don't agree with your interpretations of policy, and it's going to take more than you repeating yourself to change that. When you didn't agree with my interpretation of the rules, I took the time to dig up precedents to show you. That's not toxicity; that's a discussion. Toxicity is undoing other people's work without looking at it first. Toxicity is hitting "delete" without lifting one finger to work out a compromise text. Toxicity is writing an RfC so biased that the thing we're actually arguing about would have been unrecognizable to newcomers if I hadn't changed the text. Toxicity is bringing up issues that are not in dispute, issues that we all already agree on, over and over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read the comments from DarkFalls and Donlago, I think it best I avoid Darkfrog's PA baiting completely. I've stricken the 'thick/thin' characterization as snarky; forgive me for growing impatient with Darkfrog24. I felt that DRN and RfC were going nowhere; time and again, she wasn't addressing the actual concerns raised, and insisted on reframing the argument into a non-pertinent discussion. For over a month. So, my temper flared. I get tired and frustrated of dealing with difficult editors, too.

I had not sought to introduce a content dispute here. At all. The problem (as I saw it) was that a difficult editor continued to defy a consensus that stated that secondary sources needed to be used to support statements instead of a primary source. Subsequently, of four sources introduced, only one met our criteria for inclusion. Two of them were from user-content-created sites (one of them a fansite). The remaining one appeared to have been faked, and the suspicious nature of said reference prompted me to get more input. Considering Darkfrog's clear dedication to including the chapters from the book, it wasn't too far a leap to wonder if she had in fact created the reference on May 28th (the date the ad posted) to support this edit. If so, this needed to be addressed by someone with a larger set of tools than myself. At the very least, she needs to understand how primary and secondary references are utilized in Wikipedia; she seems to misunderstand/misinterpret them.

Lastly, since all but one of the references have proven to be fake or non-reliable, why are they still in the article? Why - in the face of consensus, is Darkfrog24 immediately trying to revert her preferred version in? I know consensus can change, but not right after a consensus has been formed.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was that I needed secondary sources to use the content and tag. I found some. I restored the content and tag. Jack is complaining anyway.

I didn't fake anything, Jack. I find a source that supports content that you don't like and you say I must have written it myself? I didn't have to write the 538 article myself. I didn't have to write the IGN or Tor or i09 articles or Storm of Swords novel or even the rejected sources like the Westeros.org article myself. What makes you think I'd have to write the Prince Albert article myself? I'm not the one who's out of line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of the consensus. It was that a secondary source should be used in place of a primary source, for various reasons noted above. The sources you then found - with the exception of the 538 article - were either non-RS or completely fake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there was not an "in place of" consensus. Go back and read it if you have to: I got secondary sources to show that the content was not trivial. There is no further reason to delete it or the reference to the source in which I found it.

I didn't fake anything. Just because there are sources that support information that you don't like doesn't automatically make them non-RS or mean that I made them up. I notice you didn't object to IGN and sources of similar quality being cited elsewhere in those articles--because you don't have a pet peeve about the content that they were supporting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The question at hand: Cite both primary and secondary or only secondary?

If anyone wants to actually help with this problem, please give your $.02 on this: If a piece of information is supported by both primary and secondary sources, must the tag citing the primary source be deleted? Must it be kept? If either is allowed, which does Wikipedia policy prefer? Does it matter which source the editor actually used to find the information? Here is the case in question, but there are others on similar pages: [16] Of the things that JS and I are butting heads over, that one looks like it could be resolved. He doesn't like that I keep listing the tag citing the novel; I don't like that he keeps deleting it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Like in all things, context matters. As far as anything that might be disputed or challenged, secondary sources are preferred. Anything personal and identifying (like gender identification, religion, sexuality, or politics) primary sources would be preferred. Primary sources are preferred when attributing something to someone. Secondary sources are preferred when claiming something as fact. Ect ect - context.--v/r - TP 23:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite honestly what's the harm in putting another source into the statement? If the statement is not in dispute, there is absolutely no reason to remove a primary source that serves to compliment a secondary source. Since when is citing more sources a bad thing? I am unsure what the fuss is all about. —Dark 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was holding off to let other people chime in, but that hasn't happened. In answer to your question, having multiple sources is a good thing, when it is required (though ref overkill can get distracting for the reader). This matter began when the user cited the book when interpreting which chapters from the books are used in the episode(s). As we all know, evaluative, comparative or interpretive analysis requires secondary sources. The additional problem is that, w/out a secondary source, it appeared to be the editor deciding this was important for inclusion, synthesis, fancruft (or both). The book does not speak to the series; therefore, it cannot be cited as a source for such.

Content-wise, with the way the writers were mixing content from the books, smooshing different book events together, or inventing new plotlines not even seen in the book, there was (and is) concern that - without a reliable secondary source - any such determination is going to always be challenged.

To date, the editor in question has sought to add several sources to the article to justify chapter-to-series interpretation. Of these, only one (from 538.com) was acceptable. Each time the editor finds a new source, the precise wording, w/out alteration, is re-added to the article. Often, the source doesn't even match the wording being reverted back into the article. Since there are so many problems with this editor and sources, it would seem prudent - and collaborative - to talk about them in discussion first. BOLD only applies when there isn't strong dissent from multiple editors. BOLD only applies when the content being added is different. That isn't the case here. Darkfrog24 seems desperate to include this material, and her recent addition of fansite, circular or deceptive sources is indicative of that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If a painting shows George Washington and a quarter shows George Washington, then it's not interpretation or smooshing to say "These both show George Washington," which is how the content in question was phrased when I was using the book as the sole source: "Content from this episode is also found in Novel chapters X, Y, and Z," and that is explicitly permitted by WP:PRIMARY. I offered to rephrase it to "[Event] happened in chapter X and [other event] in chapter Y" to address your concerns. Diego offered still another format. At no point were you in any way willing to work with anyone on finding a compromise format that would address your concerns and still provide the readers with their information.

As for the sources I selected, there's no rule requiring me to satisfy you personally or get anyone's permission. You don't like the content that they support, so you make excuses—and you don't have a single complaint about the use of similar sources elsewhere in the article.

You wanted me to find more sources, so I found some. You should have put this in the win column and moved on months ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

In the end, I feel that while both Darkfrog and Jack Sebastian are (hopefully) well-intentioned, their edit warring on Oathkeeper and the related discussion on the Talk page, including the RfC, is beyond the point where anything productive is occurring. I'm offering the following proposals for consideration.

1. An interaction ban between Darkfrog and Jack Sebastian. I'm not sure what an appropriate duration would be. Perhaps three months?
2. An article ban on both editors with regards to Oathkeeper. Again, I'm not sure what an appropriate duration would be. Six months?
3. An article ban encompassing all GoT episode-based articles.

I'm not interested in seeing either editor punished, but the disruptive bickering and edit-warring needs to stop, and regrettably neither editor seems inclined to back down, and it's my opinion that we're well-past the point where the legitimate content issues that were raised have been subsumed by the conduct issues.

If either editor has unresolved content or conduct issues, they can bring them up as a new filing in the appropriate forum...and hopefully make more of an effort to stay on point. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I feel that I'd be punished for simply keep bad or fake refs out of the article. I am not adding bad refs, and while i admit to reacting badly to Darkfrog's tactics, I think that banishing me from the GoT articles (because, frankly, she's edited several of them as well) is overly harsh. While I would be delighted to not have to interact with Darkfrog24 again, this ANI complaint is about her suspect behavior, not mine. I haven't edit-warred text into the article. I haven't added crap references to said article to keep aforementioned text. I haven't defied or twisted the intent of the consensus. Darkfrog24 has. And there is very little indication - based upon her repeated visits to ANI - that that would change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about any other articles. And while you may have opened the ANI complaint, it's my opinion that your conduct during it hasn't been especially great either. For instance, if anyone had asked, there would have been several times during this situation where I would have recommended that you wait for an uninvolved party (or even me) to say something. I've limited my participation more than I might have specifically because your arguments with each other were discouraging. I'm past the point of caring who initiated which actions and/or who's "right". DonIago (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever else you did or didn't say, Don, be advised that our dispute also includes Breaker of Chains, The Climb... It's not just Oathkeeper. I had been planning to add single-sentence chapter information to lots of GoT episode articles and still plan to do so if this matter ever gets resolved.

Jack, quit calling it a fake ref. I didn't fake anything; I just found a source for something that you don't like. Get proof or quit with the accusations. As for my tactics, the only thing I've done is disagree with your interpretation of policy, listen to everything you have to say, and offer you sources and policy and precedent and compromise texts. Oh, and I've called you on it when you've told lies. Those are my tactics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I've added an option to my proposal that includes all GoT episode articles. DonIago (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would offer an alternative.

I would propose that we offer a definitive answer as to whether we should allow books to be cited for episodes. That's what initiated this entire mess, and even Darkfrog24 was looking for a clarification/ruling on the matter. Once that is accomplished, the personality issues would likely diminish - there would be so much less to argue about. I don't particularly want to interact with her, but I don't want to be banned from articles that I am interested in. For DF, a topic ban would hardly be an imposition, as she edits a wide range of articles. It would cut my editing content down by half. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Any topic or interaction ban is extremely premature and ill-advised at this point. I don't believe their interaction is toxic to such a point that there is no recourse except to ban them from interacting with each other/the topic. Interaction/topic bans should not be handed out lightly. I hold onto hope that consensus may develop and an agreement may be reached; if not, alternative dispute resolutions do exist. Quite honestly regarding the content itself I don't understand why there is such furore over the inclusion of primary sources - I'd like to note that WP:SYNTHESIS applies more to the statements themselves being fabricated or unduly implied by the sources.

For example, if a source states that "Harry is a bird of some kind" and the statement says "Harry is a chicken", then there is synthesis. But if the statement says "Harry is a chicken" and you have a secondary source stating that "Harry is a chicken" and a primary source stating "I am a bird of some kind", there really is no problem including both sources. Original research applies to the statements in the article itself - it applies less so to the sources referenced. On another note, is it really worth bickering over this? Honestly I am baffled at how minor this dispute appears to be. Quite honestly, sometimes it's better off if you just walk away. —Dark 03:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay so after having a look at the RfC, the main problem I see is that both editors are not letting anyone else get a word in with the constant bickering. I'd encourage both editors to shut up for a few days and stop edit warring over the inclusion of sources, otherwise I'll just lock the page for a few days and noone can edit (something I would prefer not to do). As I understand it, the dispute is on the use of the book as a source for the tv show episode. To my understanding, there needs to be a reliable secondary source specifying a link between the show and the book ("the episode follows the events of the book as specified in...") Only then should the primary source be used as a reference. Personally I would create a separate "production" topic in the article, stating (with secondary sources) how the writing and production of the episode has been influenced by this chapter of the novel etc. (See some FAs: Squeeze (The X-Files), Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)) That way you are indirectly including the novel as a "source" while not explicitly citing it. —Dark 03:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I could live with that, I guess - so long as an actual reliable reference presented itself. Any ideas on how to approach the magical vanished reference? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find something here that explains the similarity/differences between the book and the tv show. —Dark 06:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark, I don't understand what you mean by "not letting anyone else get a word in." Two people making posts does not prevent any third, fourth or fifth person from making posts.

I just got back from an eight-day absence, so that whole "take a break thing" might not help.

WP:PRIMARY seems to permit the use of novels in this way. Nonetheless, I did find secondary sources. And more. And more. And more. Jack has repeatedly deleted the content as unsourced without bothering to look at the sources provided. [17][18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. THAT is why I have not put still more effort into finding still more sources—he doesn't bother to look at them. Others he dismisses for trivial reasons. Jack says he wants secondary sources, but using them doesn't seem to satisfy him. That is why I think there's something else going on here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd point out that I'd apologized for the 538.com removals (2 of them), as it appears to be the only secondary reference that Darkfrog24 has added that holds up to any level of scrutiny. The remainder of the links were mostly of DF's edit summary rationalizations for including fanblogs or mysteriously appearing and disappearing sources. She's currently arguing in another GoT article - with another user that we should include user-run fansites - so to better support her listings of chapters. Granted - I am difficult to work with when someone gets my Irish up, but this is a pattern with Darkfrog24. She wants those chapters in, and has been willing to argue with everyone to get them in.

I am willing to come to compromise in agreeing to the chapters - if they are supported by an explicit, reliable source. I've said this since this admittedly WP:LAME argument began, over a month ago. DF keeps saying that I keep moving the bar higher. It has never changed - she has simply failed to meet our standards for inclusion. What is truly lame about this argument is that she is arguing about material that everyone else has told her she has to cite as per policy/guideline, and she calls it "interpretation." How does anyone discuss rationally with such a person? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You apologized and then you did it again, and then you did it again. You've established a pattern, Jack. I find a source and then you dismiss it out of hand without looking at it. That leaves me to conclude that sources aren't really what you want here.

The chapters are supported by an explicit, reliable source—the novel is by definition the most reliable source possible with respect to its own content. I've also found article after article.

Excuse, me "everyone else"? Go back and look at our discussions. Go back and look at the RfC. Not everyone in this discussion agreed with you.

And yes, "Using a novel as a source to cite facts about its own content is OR" is your interpretation. What WP:PRIMARY actually says is, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge," which is what I did. This is what you have to stop doing. This is what is making it almost impossible to work with you: Stop acting as if your own opinions are gospel. Acknowledge them as your own beliefs. Acknowledge that no one is obligated to automatically agree with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to stop posting after this, unless I am asked a specific question by someone else here. You will recall that Donlago (and likely others) noted that they can't get a word in edgewise.I think its high time you took the hint; I finally am.

I will say this for the last time: you are taking your quotation from PRIMARY out of context; read the entire passage about the uses of primary sources. Ask around. Ask admins or other editors who have been here for years. You aren't going to take my word - or the word of any other editor in the articles you edit - so ask around. You've wasted enough time. Ask, instead of doing the same thing wrong over and over.
Almost all of the sources you are "finding" are not suitably secondary for use in Wikipedia articles, and do not support the text you have been wishing to add for over a month. Of course myself and others are going to remove them.
If you had simply listened to others - or asked around - you could have avoided wasting almost two months of your - and everyone else's - time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't read the policy. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I wasn't listening to you; it means that the things you have to say aren't as convincing as you think they are. As for asking around, you called an RfC. The respondents were split on the issue. Stop acting as if your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is the only one. You've seen that it isn't.

Yeah, they're "not suitable" because they support content that you just don't like. The fact that there are so many pages listing this information should be a big hint. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Users blocked

Both Darkfrog and Jack were just blocked by Nyttend (talk · contribs) for a week for edit-warring. Under the circumstances it seems likely this filing will go stale. I have concerns as to how matters will proceed once they've both been unblocked, and would welcome additional opinions regarding a more long-term solution. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For everyone's information, this was separately reported at WP:RFPP. Both had violated 3RR a few days ago and (although at a slower rate) were still going on the warring, but as nobody had really been warring except for these two, I thought it best for everyone just to block them. Once the block expires, my short-term suggestion is to tell both of them not to edit the article itself, only discussing on the talk page — in other words, it would be best if they self-ban from editing this specific article. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian is currently unblocked, while Darkfrog24's block has been shortened, as noted here and here. Jack Sebastian's block was also discussed here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Also unblocked as of last night.

Bottom line: Jack's not going to listen to me and he's burned up any benefit of the doubt or credibility that he had in my book, so someone else needs to come in and contribute. I've tried citing policy, showing him other articles that use the sources the way I did, offering compromises, finding more sources and finding more sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

TheMindCrapAddict block evasion

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

---

TheMindCrapAddict (talk · contribs) was blocked by Callanecc as a vandalism-only account, after which TheMindCrapAddict posted on my talk page on the Minecraft wiki their intent to register at least one new account to "complain about [Callanecc]". 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure we can't help you here; you'll need someone with more advanced tools. Probably best to go to WP:SPI to request assistance. Of course, if someone new pops up to complain about Callanecc without any warning or reason, we ought to look closely at that account. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI filed. Thanks for the pointer. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Unfair conduct in a deletion battle

There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given Ubikwit a 3RR-warning based on the page history. Don't interpret that as me supporting the article, though, because it seems a bit "thin", so nominating it for deletion discussion was probably the right thing to do. Reverting any and all attempts to improve the article during the deletion discussion was IMHO not the right thing to do, though. Thomas.W ^talk 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy, will reply to this later. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the four separate reverts over a period of several days pertain to four respectively different blocks of text, all of which were inserted in the article against the various policies cited, and do not represent history.

The material added by the OP was fringe, peripheral, or completely unrelated to the subject of the article, such as the material in the last diff, which relates to Bnei Menashe, a group of recent converts to Judaism in India surrounded by some controversy.

Though I informed him of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, as he doesn't seem to understand the concept of history, not to mention policies such as WP:RS, he continued to insert similarly unrelated, unreliably sourced, and fringe material in a tendentious manner, without discussion on the Talk page, subverting the BRD cycle.

The AfD discussion is here, and I have queried the closing admin in relation to his judgement as to the consensus. He closed the AfD as a "Clear policy-based "keep"".

Meanwhile, the OP also linkspammed the "Jewish diaspora"[25] and Ten lost tribes[26] articles. After that he added fringe material not even supported by this unreliable website or this blog, this ref, or ref. Every single one of those sources in unreliable for just about anything on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the HP blog). They were added to support a promotional statement to which the OP apparently has an emotional attachment.

I have dealt with a number of similar editors on Ten lost tribes related pages over the past couple of years, but few as persistent as the OP.

Some of the material he added was offensive to other religious traditions, namely Hinduism and Buddhism. Some of it still remains in the article in slightly modified but still unacceptable form

Some legendary material links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as legends that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.

, while another statement on Buddha has been removed, and is quoted in this thread at the fringe noticeboard.

Regarding the first statement, User:Ravpapa seems to suggest that maybe Birnbaum was being misrepresented here. And the original text of the OP was modified here by User:Smeat75.

I should note that the source in question is in Hebrew, and since I don't speak Hebrew I've no been able to evaluate it myself with regards to reliability, though I accept Ravpapa's use for noncontroversial facts.

Apparently he is here trying to complain about "unfair" conduct "deletion battle" in order to win a content dispute. His battle mentality is evident. The four reverts over a period of six days certainly do not violate the spirit of WP:EW policy, and I certainly didn't come close to breaching 3RR. Moreover, material offensive to Buddhism was removed, and the material related to Nepalese as descendants of "Abraham's concubines" and the etymology of the word Brahmin should also be removed as offensive to the sensibilities of Nepalese people and followers of Hinduism, and are exceptional claims. So is the claim about the caste system.

In this regard, I cite from WP:RS

Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:12, 11:30 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have now accused User:Thomas.W of possible "stalking" you. [27] is your "stalking warning" to that editor with whom you have had zero other interactions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I was not aware of his comment at this AN/I thread when I left that warning. Meanwhile, there has been zero interaction between TW and me outside of AN/I, commencing with his first baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me in the thread I filed against you several days ago, as you are well aware. So what is your point? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Accusing me of stalking you is just a load of BS. I commented on the previous ANI-case involving you, correcting a couple of misconceptions you had regarding the process here, and then issued a 3RR-warning to you based on the page history of the article that this ANI-case is about, but apart from that I haven't interacted with you in any way anywhere on WP. So your accusation is totally baseless. Unfortunately baseless accusations against everyone who doesn't agree with you are a frequent part of your uncollegial behaviour here on WP, a behaviour that is totally unacceptable. And, as was pointed out to you in the previous ANI-case, if everyone disagrees with you, the problem most likely doesn't lie with everyone else, but with you. Thomas.W ^talk 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: Claiming that the edits you reverted are badly sourced or fringe is no excuse for edit-warring, it's just a content dispute that should be taken to the talk page of the article. The only reverts that don't count against the three-revert rule are reverts of blatant vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: First, I did not accuse you, I warned you to be wary of engaging in such behavior, as at the time I saw your warning I was not aware of your comment here, so again you fail to assume good faith.

Secondly, I was not at 3RR on that page, having made four reverts over a period of 6 days. 3RR warnings are generally issues at 3RR.

Finally, your first interaction with me on WP was to level this baseless accusation of WP:OWN. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You had two reverts within 24h and one just outside 24h, and showed no sign of intending to stop. Also note that the AfD-discussion has just been closed as keep, with this comment by the closing admin: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep". A comment that criticises your behaviour/reverts on the article. Thomas.W ^talk 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are persistent, aren't you? With green text no less.

If you were a little more thorough in your investigating, you would have noted my comment above related to the close, and found this.

The closer has yet to respond to the query, which is standard procedure when the judgment of the closer of an AfD is called into question for possible review. Obviously I disagree with that close, as well as the accusation of disruption. The OP of this thread was tendentiously adding fringe and unrelated material to the article in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD. The close will be subject to review.

The assertion that I "showed no sign of intending to stop" is another baseless accusation by you. See WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be very fond of wikilawyering, but you're not very good at it; in several cases obviously not even having read the policies you refer to. Because the only one here showing battlegrund mentality is you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reference: User_talk:Ravpapa#Birnbaum_source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • Note to admins Tomwsulcer has now removed the contentious material from the article [28], which is an appropriate and welcome act, and I thank him for doing so. There hadn't been any real complaint about my conduct other than a weak EW claim, so I request that this be closed. Should Thomas.W persist in his demeanor toward me, I'll request a one-way IBAN be placed on him. I have never interacted with the guy on WP outside of this venue, when he leveled the above-diffed baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously requesting an interaction ban against me for comments about your behaviour, made in two threads on ANI? Get real, dude. Thomas.W ^talk 12:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefaced that with "Should he persist", dude. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since our only interactions ever have been here on ANI, and a 3RR-warning because of a discussion here on ANI, I interpret that as you intending to request an interaction ban against me if I continue making comments about your behaviour here on ANI, in a case filed against you because of your behaviour. That's not what interaction bans are for, dude, you're fair game here as long as the comments are civil,as mine always are. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", you made a baseless accusation related to an activity that presumes an intimate familiarity with my editing: WP:OWN. Your second interaction with me was also in relation to a filing here at ANI, which I gather you are an avid monitor of. Although you are permitted to monitor my edits, comment on talk pages of articles I edit, etc., you are not permitted to make baseless accusations out of the blue without evidence. The next time you do that I will file a report about you here, and request the one-way IBAN. I find nothing civil about your tone. You are "fair game", too. And please don't call me "dude" again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to file whatever complaint you want, but don't forget to read the page you quoted without having read it before you do. Thomas.W ^talk 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Without attempting to excuse any improprieties that may or may not have occurred in this episode, I think it is important to understand the surrealistic editing environment in which it took place. The article History of the Jews in Nepal began its life as a coat-hanger to tell the story of a Passover Seder in Katmandu, attended by 1500 Israeli backpackers, sponsored by Chabad, an orthodox Jewish religious organization. In the course of the deletion debate, various items were added and deleted to give the article the appearance of a real article. Among the things added:

• There is no Jewish community in Nepal, and never was one.
• About 20,000 Israeli tourists visit Nepal every year.
• There is a legend about the ten lost tribes of Israel settling in various parts of India, but not in Nepal.
• An Israeli mountain-climber once gave up his dream of scaling Mount Everest in order to rescue another climber.

In the debate, the opponents of deletion - all of whom spend a not inconsiderable portion of their time editing articles related to the Chabad movement - argued passionately that this big Passover celebration in itself constituted an historical Jewish presence in this Jewless land. They took umbrage at some of the more pointed criticisms of the article, claiming they were "anti-Jewish" and "a mockery of Jews, Jewish Passover rituals, the Chabad people". The atmosphere was intense.

It is clear to anyone whose sight is not clouded by ideology that this ten tribes legend, irrelevant to Nepal, has no place in the article. But then, it is also clear that this article has no place in Wikipedia.

As I said at the outset, I don't attempt to excuse improprieties like edit warring, but I think that admins should take into account the surreal situation in deciding on any sanctions. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there will be any sanctions. The edit-warring and disruption of the AfD-procedure stopped, the AfD has been closed and Ubikwit's tactics, with repeated baseless accusations and attempts to stifle discussion by threatening to file complaints at ANI or whatever against anyone who disagrees with him/her, have been seen by more admins/editors than before. So all is well, and this discussion can, IMHO, be closed and archived too. Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• History of the Jews in Nepal is a triumph of flag waving over common sense. From the article: there has never been a Jewish community in Nepal; the Jewish diaspora has spread to many places, but not Nepal; Nepal and Israel have diplomatic relations; an Israeli tourist rescued a boy; an Israeli climber did not climb Mount Everest; an Israeli embassy has started the tradition of holding a Passover Seder for Israeli travelers. That's it! Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is with the article title using the word history, not the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be many articles titled "History of the Jews in..." In this case, it seems more like "anecdotes" than "history". Like if someone wrote an article called "History of the Maori in the Aleutian Islands". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Just when you thought things were "quieting down" along comes Ubikwit with #User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE, see below. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

alcohol (drug) and related changes to "over 100 articles" - User talk:David Hedlund‎

I am unsure this is the correct venue. However, I see at alcohol (drug) "The name of this article, alcohol (drug), will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug." and "I replaced "alcohol or drugs" with "alcohol or other drugs" in over 100 articles." and this seems to be a clear statement of intent to pursue a specific point of view. Articles changed include Andy Rooney and Sleep, which by odd coincidence are both on my watch list. This seems incorrect. I tend to support the PoV but... I accept that it is a PoV. I noted on User talk:David Hedlund‎ that I was making this note to bring attention to the issues.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• It would help if you would provide some diffs of this alleged conduct. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Enjoy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have been looking at these and rolling back some. Others are adding links, albeit to the wrong target. At some point editors need to loot at all of the inbound links for alcohol (drug) and remove any that are not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

{ec}This is probably an issue of WP:POV violations. I noticed one on my watch list which was totally inappropriate. I never thought that it was part of a mass change! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Spot checking a few of these, there are problems with the mass changes. We have alcohol (drug) which refers to any alcohol that has certain medical effects, and then we have alcoholic beverage which are specificlly about drinks that contain alcohol. Most of the changes that are being made are really pointing to the latter, people using the beverages, and not their medical use of such. A lot more care has to be done here. (BTW, did you notify David of this discussion?). I will note that alcohol (drug) seems properly named - it is about the class of medical drugs, but the careless linking to it instead of the beverage article is what is creating the POV here. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Notified. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, Unfriend14, have you been on Wikipedia before - under another name, perhaps? Because your talk page seems to indicate that... [29]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just gone through every one of the additions of the link alcohol (drug) made by David Hedlund (as I discussed on User talk:David Hedlund#Alcohol (drug)) and reverted/revised several of them. Fortunately, most of them seemed to be OK, as the context was drug-related, medicine-related, or related to regional alcohol laws. Some links to alcohol (drug) simply added a link were none existed before, and for the most part those were harlmess and OK in context. Others, however, were clearly out of context or reduced precision, and I reverted those. I noticed I wasn't the only one reverting. I also saw some evidence of POV pushing with a couple of statements characterizing wine as a drug that clearly misrepresented the cited source, and reverted those too.

This was quite time consuming, but appears to be cleaned up now for the most part. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you went through all of them, you missed some. In may cases we have beverage articles and clearly the link should be to alcoholic beverage and not to a drug. I really love the one I just fixed where Alcoholic beverage was changed to drug and the next link to non-alcoholic beverage was left along. Clearly in context, the beverage link was correct. So more reviews need to take place. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, actually I didn't miss those. I wavered in my temptation to revert those, in the sense that there is no need to revert "happy" to "glad" or vice versa. In cases many where "alcoholic beverage" was changed to "alcohol" (with a wikilink to alcohol (drug)), the sentence still made sense, if the point was to consume alcohol in general, rather than alcoholic beverages in particular. I have no opinion on what is better, so in most cases I left them alone. If you reverted them, that's fine too. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going through them all. Because this complaint sounded familiar I did an AN search and found this fairly recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Return to David Hedlund --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which was in reference to an earlier thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Copy-paste_tracking. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed Terry Kath has had the same thing happen ([30]) and I see he's hit a few hundred articles just this morning. Do we have communication problems here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Nick: Hes death involved alcohol (a drug), not water intoxication. So whats wrong with putting alcohol in this context? --David Hedlund 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked David until he's prepared to engage with the discussion here. He was still hitting articles at quite some pace as I was blocking him, sorry I'm afraid there's a number of reverts that might need to be made. Nick (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And now unblocked so he can participate here, on the understanding he won't make similar edits until he has discussed the issue. Nick (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not so much the content, which I'm welcome to discuss on Talk:Terry Kath, but rather you carried on making controversial edits after other people asked you to take time out and discuss them. As long as you discuss first, we should hopefully reach an agreement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ok, I have received both Thanks and Reverts. So I am not even allowed to edit medicine-related (eg x is contraindicative with alcohol) articles until you reach a consensus? --David Hedlund 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the interest in alcohol - it looks like you have a specific point of view that you're (intentionally or not) forcing upon the project. I'd also like to know what sources you intend to use for discussing alcohol being contraindictative with (presumably) pharmaceuticals. Nick (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Because I'm very interested in medical writing. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Having had one of these pop up on my watchlist and having then examined and reverted several on an item-by-item basis, I have to say I discern a POV element that sometimes descends to the level of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. At Vínbúð (reverted by another editor), Sprecher Brewery, If-by-whiskey, Strip club, Drive-through, and Mpongwe people, for example, the context is very clearly that of beverages - explicitly in the title in the first three cases. In other cases such as Bridgewater State University I hesitate to point out other means of alcohol delivery that are without a doubt not covered, on grounds of WP:BEANS. At School district drug policies the editor changed the wording to include alcohol under drugs, at Drug possession the editor inserted an aside about this one legal drug into the lede's restriction of the topic to illegal drugs, and at Gateway drug theory the editor shuffled exposition and examples so as to present alcohol as less licit than cannabis. I haven't looked at the medical articles, where there might be a better prima facie case for changing the link from Alcohol or Alcoholic beverage or for adding a link to the Alcohol (drug), but the edits I have looked at plus the response above suggests to me that the editor cannot edit neutrally on the topic of alcohol. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, Nick, Ritchie333, and Rhododendrites: I will edit more careful now after I've listen to you guys. Can you please give me a chance to add alcohol (drug) to 10 more articles so you can reevaluate if I can edit neutrally? I have 1500 articles left to read to make a decision if this term comes in context. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. The popular convention for disagreements over content is bold, revert, discuss. You made an edit, somebody else reverted, then you talk about the differences. So, what I would rather see is you opening one talk page discussion, resolving that content dispute, then moving onto the next. I've started a conversation at Talk:Terry Kath#Alcohol and drugs, which will hopefully resolve the dispute on that article. It won't, however, cover the other 1,499 articles you were thinking of looking at. Frankly, I'd give up on the idea of changing that many articles completely in any definite timeframe, because now it's been brought to the attention here, it's unlikely you'll be able to do it without somebody thinking you're being disruptive - and that comes with a risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I made this new edit[31] but wont make any further of this kind as long as you don't give me feedback on it. I won't add "alcohol (drug)" in non-medical articles from now on. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now an additional component to this. It seems that there are changes to the use of {{Psychoactive substance use}} and {{Alcohealth}}. In some cases this is being replaced by {{Alcohol (drug)}}. In some cases the order of the entries is changed giving priority to the new template. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the template to its original form at {{Alcohol and health}} and reverted Hedlund's edits to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also this is a bit circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to bring up the fact that the article to which all these links have been made is a recent creation out of a redirect. It's been marked as non-neutral and there are a couple of relevant sections on its talk page. ... I continue to revert/change the links on a case by case basis and I see others are doing so too, with emphasis on the non-medical articles. Some I've left unchanged, as Amatulic mentions having also done. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between alcoholic beverage and alcohol (drug) is artificial, and I rather think that everything should be discussed in a single article. The only difference between them is the amount - surely this can be discussed in context (in terms of health effects and recommended limits). JFW | T@lk 20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Systematically changing all internal links to alcoholic beverages, on a very large number of articles, to point to his own new POV article, alcohol (drug), without prior discussion, is clearly disruptive. Hundreds of articles today alone, ranging from breweries to BLPs. And not only changing existing links, but also creating new links in articles where "alcoholic beverage" was mentioned in the text. Showing that he has made a free text search to find targets to add his link to. Thomas.W ^talk 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't ethanol basically the same as alcohol (drug)? So, ethanol is probably the best link in many of those articles where alcoholic beverage is not quite right. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: No, alcoholic beverages also contain significant amounts of 2M2B and isopropanol in certain drinks like beer and rum respectively.--David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't 2M2B a trace byproduct? If so, that's hardly significant. While not a chemist, I somehow wonder how significant that point is. Also, if these were important, why does ABV only measure ethanol? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically in these two edits [32] [33] he split the Alcoholic beverage into two pages creating Alcohol (drug). Alcohol is rarely used iv as a treatment for methanol toxicity but agree that they can usually be discussed together. These would be subpages of ethanol which is used for many none drug purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I added Alcohol (drug)#Pharmaceutical_alcohols. Alcohol deserves to be mentioned as a chemical class of drugs as Benzodiazepine. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 07:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as David is now in "discuss" mode and has held off changing any more articles, I think we're all done with any administrator action. We definitely need to continue the general conversation though about the content, whether that's at a project page (possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and Drink or Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs) or at WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a Drugbox to Ethanol#Pharmacology for those who are interested. My goal is to create an article for alcohol that describe it as a chemical class (loosely called "drug family") in the category of WP:Pharmacology and/or WP:Medicine. WP:DRN redirects to WP:Pharmacology. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) @Ritchie333:

Hmm. I can't help thinking there's still some confusion around here. You might be better off just going to Swedish Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That is not an option at all as I'm only interested to publish it in the english Wikipedia. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Judging by comments on your talk page on sv-WP and an article you created there, your insufficiently/improperly sourced POV edits aren't very popular on the Swedish Wikipedia. An article that apparently has been speedily deleted once and might be speedied again. So what made you believe your POV edits would be welcomed here? Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the greatest confusion might be that over 90% consume alcohol and it is likely that many of them value alcohol as a social drink rather than a drug. "Ethanol, commonly referred to as alcohol in this context, is widely consumed for enjoyment, for recreational purposes"[34] --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for crusades, or pushing a certain view at the expense of everything else. So if you were looking for a web site where you can push teetotalism, you've come to the wrong place. Thomas.W ^talk 15:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the article Alcohol_(Drug), Alcoholic beverage and Ethanol were fine articles. In college, one of the professors said "salt is a drug." Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hedlund, this is irrelevant. The point of this whole discussion is that you had been improperly changing every single reference of alcohol as a drink to point to your recently created article that has an incredibly skewed point of view that you need to use Wikipedia to warn people of the dangers of alcohol abuse by explicitly referring to it as a drug which is a violation of the English Wikipedia's core policies. There is no reason that the information should have been moved to its own article, nor that it cannot be discussed under the topics of human consumption of alcohol, alcoholic beverage, ethanol, alcohol abuse, etc. Your split was unwarranted. Your edits to point to your split off page are unwarranted. Your skewed POV is not wanted on the English or Swedish Wikipedias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

David Hedlund has just created Alcohol and crimes which I've temporarily redirected to Alcohol abuse. Can someone please make him stop making these articles? He's clearly showing he cannot have a neutral point of view here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few of this editors articles and was on the verge of nominating the POV fork for deletion but I think that we would do well to review all of their articles. I recognize a lot of good faith effort here I'm just concerned they don't meet the GNG guidelines or otherwise unacceptable. I'm sorry I really don't want this to come across mean I truly don't mean it that way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Since he was conditionally unblocked, promising to discuss, and not continue making controversial edits, maybe someone should block him again. Thomas.W ^talk 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Some fo these may be old news..

• Long-term impact of alcohol on the brain
• Methanol outbreaks
• Alternative psychoactive alcohol use
• Alcohol (drug)
• Alcohols (drug)
• Alcohol (drug)
• Substituted alcohols Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The creation of Alcohol and crimes after it was made clear in this discussion that the editor needed to stop this kind of edits is concerning. I think I have now checked all the remaining non-medical articles to which the Alcohol (drug) link was added and that had not been reverted already; please could someone with scientific knowledge check the scientific articles? I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban from alcohol-related articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: He's still going at it, even trying to sneak edits through with deliberately misleading edit summaries. So could someone please block him again to prevent further disruption. Thomas.W ^talk 17:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur, he is out of control and not respecting any voluntary limits. He has made dozens of entries today to the original article "Alcohol (drug)" [35]. In one case he asked at the talk page for someone to add a particular infobox, and after two people said it was inappropriate, he attempted to add it himself.[36] [37] --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He also seems to have created Alcohol and health during his spree of article creations last year. It seems he has been creating these POVFORKs for some time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That article almost seems reasonable. I'm actually tempted to convert Alcohol (drug) to a redirect to Alcohol and health unless someone sees a good reason not to. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone look at the templates created as part of this push like {{Entheogens}}. I have no idea if they are correct or not. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just nuke the template. It's a POVFORK of {{Hallucinogens}}.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to state that I don't agree with Vegaswikian changing every link of "alcohol consumption" to "alcohol," like he did here and here for example. I object because the Alcohol article is broader than the Alcohol (drug) or Alcoholic beverage articles; its primary focus is not on alcohol being consumed. Therefore, I don't see it as a "better link," as described by Vegaswikian in his changes.

As for redirecting the Alcohol (drug) article to the Alcohol and health article, a good reason not to do that is that it's likely to be contested (at some point anyway). I suggest a WP:Merge discussion or a WP:Redirect for discussion instead. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the better link, yes in some cases alcoholic beverages or ethanol could be the better links (and I have changed them as appropriate). But in only a few cases would it be best to leave the link to alcohol (drug). This an example of why POV forks are bad. I look at one article being about the substance and the other is about the pharmacology of the substance. I guess one could argue that a better edit comment would be 'rv POV fork'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I think that when it comes to mentioning alcoholic consumption, the Alcoholic beverages article is the better link, unless there is some specific reason why the Ethanol article is the better link. Going back to the topic of redirecting the Alcohol (drug) article to the Alcohol and health article... Actually, discussion likely is not needed to do that, since it's a WP:Spin out article that David Hedlund recently created and others have objected to; furthermore, considering that David Hedlund is currently indefinitely blocked, I don't see who else would object to the redirect and/or merge. Some of that content should probably be merged back into the Alcoholic beverages article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can use alcoholic beverage more often if others think that is the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But I see that there is a discussion going on at the Alcohol (drug) article talk page about what to do with that article. So, yes, discussion first. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reblock recommended

See Talk:Alcohol_(drug)#Template:Drugclassbox.

1. David first asks that someone please add Template:Drugclassbox to the article.
2. I reply I don't think it applies to alcohol.
3. David then adds the infobox with the misleading edit summary "Adding/improving reference(s)". He is reverted, with a note from another editor "Rv edit with misleading edit summary; adding Template:Infobox (drug) isn't "adding/improving references"".
4. He then adds Category:Chemical classification, which I also believe does not apply.
5. Regardless of the above, he then continues to add more WP:POV items to the article, contrary to his promise when unblocked.

Given my response to David's question on the article talk page, as well as the many concerns noted here and on his talk page, and that he was conditionally unblocked by @User:Nick "on the understanding that [he will be reblocked if you immediately return to making the same edits [he was] making before]", I recommend a reblock. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to recommend this as well. As I noted above he does not respect voluntary limits, so I suspect a topic ban would be ineffective. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped editing. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You previously promised to abide by the rules of your unblock, which you did not do. You've also not self-reverted your recent changes and additions, but have left it to other volunteers to clean up after you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

He also claims to have stopped editing, which is not true.[38] Before he gets re-blocked, he should be compelled to do no edits of any kind until he has reverted the changes in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the edits he did after saying he had stopped editing were to his own userspace (where he has created a complete copy of the Alcohol (drug) page, presumably so he can keep working on it no matter what anyone else does) and on a talk page (where he attempted to justify adding the infobox that had been recommended against). However, it should be noted that he "stopped editing" only after this block proposal was made at ANI - and that prior to that he had made 70+ edits today and several hundred yesterday. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, as an admin could revoke talk page access. The sequence of events should be (1) he reverts everything that violates his unblock condition; (2) he gets indef'd but retains talk page access ; (3) if he refuses to do option (1), then indef and remove talk page access. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to get back up to speed with this, Baseball Bugs - has David Hedlund reverted his edits yet and is the consensus still to reblock ? Nick (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: No and yes. He hasn't reverted anything, and there's still a definite consensus in favour of a reblock. Thomas.W ^talk 19:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When it became evident he was not going to revert his questionable edit, an indef became inevitable. I think there's a way to mass-revert someone's edits, but I don't know what that method is (might required admin authority). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing at Split infinitive by single-purpose account

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

---

User:Der Grammarkönnig has been persistently either adding dubious unsourced material, or removing sourced material they disagree with, from the split infinitive article. I'm on my phone right now, so I apologize for not providing diffs. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I just want to comment that I think an admin named "Future Perfect" has a built-in COI on any matter related to a grammar article, and should let someone else do the blocking. EEng (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dysfunction

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

---

Why is this website so totally dysfunctional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.245.195 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One problem is contributors who act like others are mind-readers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that it's full of people who think they have the answer (the truth, the answer, the right, the moral high road, ect, ect), or are condescendingly smug about how they see blaring problems but have no answer, and no one is willing to work together to fix them.--v/r - TP 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the problem is passive-aggressive meta commentary. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Who says it is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it? Could you explain which articles you are referring to?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Massive reverts at War of currents

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

---

A group of editors:

• Atlantictire
• Petri Krohn
• Binksternet

decided[39] to revert[40] the article War of currents (which seems to have been stable for some time) back to a nearly 2 year old version (30 August 2012) because.... well they never gave and reason per reference, guideline, or policy other than saying there was "revisionist rot", "reads like an ode to DC", "Wikipedia had its best days some years ago", "WP:WIKIROT", "a constant decay caused by persistent POV-pushing". I tried to revert it back and tried to get some reasons why stated on the talk page per WP:BRD but was informed no reason was need, this was a vote ("We've got four people who prefer the 2012 version"[41]). Trying to clean up some of the obvious problems with removing two years worth of editorial improvements (such as integrating/rewording a section labeled "analysis") has meet with a further revert[42], a hidden revert[43], and a revert[44]. My pointing out that there should be some actual rational for such a drastic revert[45] and pointing out they need to fulfill WP:BURDEN to keep re-adding unreferenced and editor generated analysis is falling on deaf ears. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Deaf ears" – that seems fitting for the OP. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr has argued and acted to remove as much of Tesla as possible from the article about the War of Currents. As a reality check, here is what one gets from a Google web search of "Tesla" and "War of Currents" – about 5 million hits. A Google book search greatly refines the results, giving a few hundred very reliable sources. A Google Scholar search gives even more refined results. The point of this is that Tesla is commonly and popularly linked to the War of Currents, and I think Wikipedia should explain the connection. Fountains of Bryn Mawr would rather minimize the mention of Tesla, for instance, this edit which removed Tesla from the lead section and reduced the amount of text explaining Tesla's contribution. Fountains of Bryn Mawr would like to revise history and reduce the effectiveness of Wikipedia's coverage of the War of Currents. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When Wikipedia becomes an encyclopedia that measures popular culture those links may come in handy. Otherwise no specifics given (again). I noticed the arbitrary date for revert was the edit right after some IP inserted Tesla into the lead[46]. The question is should two years of edits (most of them not mine and having nothing to do with Tesla) be reverted without comment or reason given (other than "We like Tesla"?) ? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I'm not seeing a problem here. Why isn't this content dispute confined to the talk page? Having dealt with you on the Milky Way article, which almost had me take a hammer to my computer in frustration, I am inclined to agree with the above participants that you have had a problem with IDHT in the past. I'm not saying that is what is happening here, but when Binksternet says you have "deaf ears", I'm inclined to agree with him without even reviewing this dispute. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be nothing more than a content dispute. @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: If you are having difficulties on this article, you may find WP:DR a useful guide to the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes, and should really even be avoided for behavioral disputes where resolving the underlying content dispute would make resolving the behavioral dispute moot. I see no reason for this thread to continue. I move that this thread be archived accordingly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I brought it here because the parties involved have never discussed content. They simply seem to be edit warring and reverting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't share the view that resolving a content dispute will have any affect on some of these behavioral disputes per famous comments like that. We can close this up and I can go on editing with a rosy disposition but I wouldn't hold your hopes out this won't be back soon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Paid editing? Socking?

Not sure where to take this as it straddles two issues...see Rushing Woman's Syndrome, which was quoted by a celbrity this year and not supported by the medical community - written by this role account. The author has a new page at Libby Weaver, which was written by this role account, The accounts I suspect are the same and are (presumably) paid editors, hence is this worth a sockpuppet investigation...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A blind horse would get suspicious...

• 08:54 Johny 547 adds an orphan tag
• 12:01 118.103.235.115 adds a "see also" to With Women, having shown no interest in either subject previously.
• 20:07 Roastritzy removes the orphan tag.

I've removed a "reference" that was actually a quiz under the assumption that it's not generally considered an RS.

Also I've placed the ANI-notice tag for Roastritzy for you. Kleuske (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to create 2 articles, one user has 1 sandbox, I needed 2 that is why I created 2 accounts. I apologize if it is a misconduct I didn't know about the policies of Wikipedia.Roastritzy (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You can create several sandbox pages for the same account, just name them Sandbox1, Sandbox2 etc. So that's no excuse for using multiple accounts. Thomas.W ^talk 09:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; see WP:USERSUBPAGE for details. But this appears to be a genuine mistake which can be resolved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that, but I did not have this knowledge, I will be careful next time. Roastritzy (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked as sockpuppets - there doesn't seem much question that they are socks of someone, even if it is not clear who. - Bilby (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good block - there is no way someone could be familiar with other aspects of editing and then claim naivete for the sandbox thing. Question is, is a checkuser warranted? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes. So far, everybody's suspicious, Bilby is convinced and there may be more socks lurking. Ground for checking #2 seems satisfied... Kleuske (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC"

Hi, a bit puzzled. User:Spartay has lots of rapid contributions today which, according to the edit summary, are using AWB. The account was registered today and does not appear on the AWB/Check page - so how is it using AWB? In addition, the edits are bulk removing links to archive.is based on the RFC but as far as I can tell the latest RFC is still far from concluding. I've posted a question to the editor's talk page, but noting it here too because of the supposed AWB usage which is troubling if true. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account as a temporary measure until the issue of the apparent unapproved use of AWB is sorted out. Let's see what they say on their talkpage first. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The user is saying that they are only removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead, which would of course be a useful edit; I am waiting to see what they say on the issue of AWB though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Except they're not just removing the reference to archive.is from links that are not dead. They're removing the whole citation, publisher, title, date, etc etc, leaving the original url bare. And certainly in this diff, the links are dead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK. In the one I looked at it was simply removing the archiveurl= section, and the link was indeed live. Regardless of the efficacy of the edits, a brand new account should still not be using AWB, and I am interested to find out why they are. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Probably a Joe Job trying to get me into trouble, or get more people to support keeping the links in the RfC, because I was removing archive.is links. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• See also #Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others Werieth (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Granhil has also done a huge number of similar edits, also stating they used AWB and that an RFC is the reason to remove archived URL's. Wes Mouse 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just blocked Granhil (talk · contribs) who has been carrying on the deletions since just a few minutes after Spartay was blocked.  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question Unless I'm being particularly stupid, how were Spartay and Granhil using AWB when they've never been authorized? I thought it didn't work if the user name wasn't on the check page? Obviously if it's available to anyone ... well ... I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either user has used AWB to be honest. It is quite easy to write in the edit summary and make it appear as if they have used AWB. One only need to type AWB and nobody would be any the wiser. On another note, I have made a start on reverting all of Granhil's edits (if that's OK with everyone?) Wes Mouse 14:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished reverting their edits. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Magioladitis and I have finished Spartay's. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to make AWB run without authorization, but I'd rather not go into details. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}: I asked Werieth to stop removing links because every one of his edits had the perverse result of canvassing opponents to the RFC. To the best of my knowledge, he has complied with my request and seems to understand the reasoning behind it. It would appear that someone may be consciously attempting to use the same technique to manipulate the RFC. Comparing User:Spartay and User:Granhil to the participants in WP:Archive.is RFC 2 and WP:Archive.is RFC 3 would be in order. The use of AWB makes it pretty clear that this isn't an innocent new account.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: correct, see above where I stated that his may have been a joe job directed towards me, or an attempt to influence the RfC. After you heads up I have stopped because of the points your raised, and will wait for the RfC to close before continuing. Werieth (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've just blocked Jameskine (talk · contribs) who had just started doing the same. This is obvious vandalism.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it weird that every article that is being touched is in alphabetical order. Seeing as Granhil had got as far as the J's, then could it be possible that there are multiple account that have been causing al these edits starting from the A's onwards? Wes Mouse 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Hamerzi (talk · contribs) who started doing the same without edit summaries.  —SMALLJIM  14:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• CU can't do much here. I found a related account out of luck MyOperaCom (talk · contribs) who appears a first glance (I didn't verify this) to be using 32 individual proxies. I'll be putting the information to the other functionaries, but this one will need an edit filter. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

AWB's code may have been modified and recompiled. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: English Wikipedia policy demands that you request approval to use AWB (by submitting a successful RfA or asking to have your name added to a page). Does AWB check if you have been approved when you try to edit pages using it?

The source code to AWB appears to be available. Would it be trivial to disable the functions which check if you are allowed to use AWB, or is this place in the source code difficult to discover?

I have never used AWB myself, and maybe the answers are trivial to other people. I realise that it would be easy to make a script using other tools (e.g. Pywikipedia) which uses AWB-style edit summaries, and you could add "using AWB" to the edit summary manually at the edit window. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Three more: Rabinquad (talk · contribs), Deankki (talk · contribs), Szikarim (talk · contribs). Should I report them here, or at AIV, or what? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Even more: ‎Wibawal (talk · contribs) and ‎McFrancfurter (talk · contribs)‎. Probably more around. This is getting kinda out of control... 2Flows (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. Can someone mass rollback their edits, please? I can't on this device. Thanks. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at it: ‎Hablamekt (talk · contribs) joined as well. Can an admin maybe get at [47] and block all new accounts who start making such changes? They're obviously socks and should be quite easy to spot. 2Flows (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Berriozobal (talk · contribs), KanakKanak (talk · contribs), Gandyngan (talk · contribs), Prebyslaff (talk · contribs), Janewiche (talk · contribs), SashaKahn (talk · contribs)... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• All blocked. We need an edit filter. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I put in a sockpuppet investigation case before I saw this here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aaaand ... Maaaring (talk · contribs). Nothing more yet. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also * Akosanay (talk · contribs) and ‎Inilabas (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Aboliri (talk · contribs) too. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 18:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) ‎ErgoPoint (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up all the edits made by the listed above socks. But an edit filter would be a very good idea. 2Flows (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Nowong (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the user creation log, they appear to all be 'created automatically'. How is that different than just 'created'? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lala Wigan (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And they're undoing the Cluebot reverts. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, an account is created automatically if a user has an account on another wiki and logs in with it here. From [48]: "The unified login system combines the user accounts for all of these projects. The greatest advantages are single sign-up (you don't have to create your account again on each new project you get involved with; your account is automatically created at each additional Wikimedia project the first time you log on to that wiki with your existing username and password, or the first time you visit it while logged on to a wiki where you already have an account)" 2Flows (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked ten of the blocked socks, and found that one was created on the Japanese WP, three on the Ukrainian WP, five on the Chechen WP and one on Login-wiki, a technical site within the Wikimedia foundation... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

KumarSatia (talk · contribs) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Qrococcor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Saimankehru. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Urophora --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter 620 created. Protected from viewing for obvious reasons, but I invite other filter editors to review my work.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Urophora and KumarSatia blocked, reverted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this situation, but Special:Contributions/Yestersafe seems to be connected: new SPA account, apparently automated removal of archive links, alphabetical list of articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be different as they are removing any citation linked to findarticles.com, a since-defunct service, and while the approach is the same, it's not the archive.is issue. Perhaps riding the coattails? --MASEM (t) 05:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:: I can't begin to imagine this isn't related. Another detail: 12 edits, then the account was discarded. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Now with more examples showing, I'd agree that this is much more likely to be related. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not really familiar with the details of this situation, but I have the impression that this new single-purpose account may also have to be looked at: Special:Contributions/Obar_Kaib. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GoFormer has, um, interesting commentary. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More:

• Online Reputation Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseraviq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrs Ghundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wilok Colo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharly Fiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Box Office Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leew Donn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivificant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

These accounts are coming fast and furious. Two Three more:

• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katheleen Dee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Griffiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The MO is pretty consistent: Account is created, the bot makes 12 edits and then account stops. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the work of a botnet trying to affect the outcome of the ongoing RfC on archive.is? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Profanity Toward an Editor

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

---

At 10:41 on 1, July 2014, user Curtis culhane sent a message to me on my talk page using profanity and calling me an antagonizing name with this [[49]] edit. I am requesting that this be reviewed and a block be issued because this violates WP:NPA. I do take offense to that edit and comment as I have never had any interaction with this editor before. Thanks in advance, --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 14:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack has been removed and Curtis culhane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been issued a warning against making personal attacks. New account, only up to level 2 warning, so block not justified at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I know this is closed re the personal attack, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Every one of User:Curtis culhane's edits have been vandalism (apart from the personal attack). He has multiply vandalised Curtis Dennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as has User:Curtis dennis (impersonation account?) and their edits have been virtually the same. See [50] and [51]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and besides, this discussion wasn't even closed by an administrator. --Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 16:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Curtis culhane indefinitely and left a message for Curtis dennis, who created his account a day earlier. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption by User:NiamhBurns10

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

---

User:NiamhBurns10 has engaged in the following inappropriate behavior despite several warnings from multiple editors:

• Inappropriate talk page messages [52] [53]
• Restoring content to another user's userpage that the owner previously removed [54] [55] [56]
• Inappropriate final warnings [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
• Inappropriate blanking of others' userpages [64]
• Creating user pages for other users despite warnings not to [65] [66]
• Making strange "rules" on his user talk page including "No blocking me from editing" and "No reporting me" [67] [68]
• Uncollapsing things from users' talk pages after the owner collapsed them [69] [70]
• Inappropriate threats to block people who comment on his conduct on his talk page [71] [72] [73]
• Faking a block notice [74]

At the very least, there's a WP:CIR issue here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support intervention. I'd also like to add that this editor has their user page (current version) and user talk page (current version) set up in a way that clearly violates WP:NOTWEBHOST; the editor is advertising the fact that they have a Twitter and YouTube account that they want others to follow. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Recommend an indef for being unwilling to edit collaboratively. Would even support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support intervention - having dealt with Niamh, he's good at heart but has still been continuously disruptive, even when warnings are given and policies are noted. Would support an extended block. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Probably support intervention. I'll note two things. One, if listing your twitter account on your user page counts as a policy violation...ummm...let me know, because I guess I'm in violation. I advise people to treat nearly everything on a user page as trivial. Nobody (to a first approximation) reads them or sees them so it's a complete waste of time to get worked up. Even linking accounts in an asinine manner exhorting people to "follow you" is pretty much de minimis. Two, "hypocrisy" is at worst a venial sin. Actual disruption matters. Intellectual consistency less so. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your note on the social media issue - it's just two sentences mentioning the editor's Twitter and YouTube, and drawing users there is not the main purpose of the page. That being said, editing is still disruptive, etc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly recommended the user try adoption, but was ignored. I believe at that point they had told me they had blocked me from editing... yeah. Not so much. In any case, I don't think they really took much from anything I had to say. No biggie. However, they clearly have little idea how Wikipedia works (as the "rules" for their talk page demonstrate). In isolation, that isn't unusual. However, their apparent unwillingness to hear anyone about anything makes me wonder if we can overcome the CIR issue at this point. I'd suggest a sink-or-swim mentorship of some sort. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like a very young user who has some issues with authority. I'd say a very stern warning in no uncertain terms from an administrator laying it straight out that any more of these shenanigans and they're outta here. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC) see revised opinion below
• Recommend an indef per Robert. He was involved with an edit war over The Lego Movie, and I advised him to take it to the talk page as he had violated WP:3RR, but appeared to be acting in good faith. I found my message back on my page within minutes. Then, I informed him he could be blocked for the violation, and found this amusing retort waiting for me. I agree with Blackmane that he is probably young, and I would say that if he isn't blocked, that warning would be good. But youth isn't an excuse. I started editing here when I was 13, and I never had one of these issues. This user is not suitable for Wikipedia at this time, in my opinion. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I said "hypocrisy" because the user broke almost all of his own talk page "rules". Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment NiamhBurns10 hatted this thread with an edit summary of "no. That message is inappropriate.". Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Revised opinion is to indef now for obvious inability to edit collegially. They're obviously competent enough to manoeuvre around pages but everything they're doing is basically a middle finger at everyone who is trying to advise them. Blackmane (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Indeffed per the above. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Now he says you were faking it. [75] Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin focus may be helpful

At 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, questions have arisen as to whether the "Deaths" parameter of the infobox is being appropriately filled in. Specifically, regarding the inclusion of those other than the 3 kidnapped teenagers. Discussion is on the talk page. It may be that admin input, or resolution, may be helpful, as it is difficult for a non-admin to assess both: which arguments are based on wp guidelines; and what the corresponding result should be. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject seems much more appropriate to a news story than an encyclopedia article. Howunusual (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP topic area is littered with a thousand and one articles of this genre. The standard pattern of the article type is to use a selective set of sources to underline the (purported) viciousness of Palestinians. As Nishidani rightly pointed out, to create another example of the 'wild Arab terrorist/we victims paradigm' it is necessary to isolate the incident from its context (which all reliable sources covering the incident will include). One example would be the attempted removal of Palestinian deaths from the infobox as proposed by Epeefleche. Dlv999 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at AfD

Morning Star67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just stumbled across this, and this diff seems like a pretty clear legal threat to me. At the very least, it is meant to have a chilling effect. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked per NLT. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:PBS reformatting Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article titles § Reformatting Talk page

can someone please intervene with PBS to stop the reformatting and reordering, grouping and degrouping, or whatever, of other editors' Talk page posts. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to your request on my talk page, I also remove the new section header from above B2C's section and placed it below or do you mean "my talk page posts" rather than "other editors' Talk page posts"? I have not reformatted or reordered (refactored) any user's post since you requested me not not on my talk page (as specified in the refactoring help page).

Incidentally I am not sure how you can say "If I had wanted to be a subsection of Born2cycle's post I would have put myself as a subsection" as you posted your comment before B2C posted his! -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't much in the way of an apology, it sounds more like a self-justification and gives no undertaking that you do not intend to do similar again. In answer how I can say "If I had wanted to be a subsection of Born2cycle's post I would have put myself as a subsection" is because I could have done what you did, and come along after my post and alter the grouping of my post (except I would have had to agree with Born2cycle before doing so as the edit affected 2 editors' post). But that was my post and Born2cycle's post - do you understand the difference between you regrouping other editors' posts and the editor(s) themselves doing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please can someone else intervene with PBS here. I am going out. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the exclusion of user names in topic sections (WP:TALKNEW), so I have removed my user name from the section header.

I understand the rules about reverting the refactoring of talk page comments if another editor objects (I ought to I wrote the paragraph). I did this as soon as you asked me to. I wrote the paragraph in refactroring specifically to stop section like this being created, and bickering about whether refactoring should or should not remain on the page. For that reason I will add any more text to this section as it is a distraction to the main issue of whether #Is an exclamation mark sufficient for disambiguation. -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

All in one section (with subsections) now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion now a subsection of the Winston Churchill question? I see that B2C did not open it as such. Per IIO, this noodling around with the structure of the posts seems to be confusing things... ╠╣uw [talk] 13:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I verified[76] I did not even open it as a subsection by accident. I made it into an ordinary section heading now which makes all the other subsections now subsections of that section. Not sure what the intent was there so I'm leaving those alone. --В²C ☎ 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see what happened. PBS decided to combine In's section and mine as subsections of one new larger section[77]. Apparently he later undid that, but not completely. --В²C ☎ 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

After this edit on my talk page, I thought it would be wise to move that discussion off the talk page about article naming guidelines, and move it here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does not appear to belong here the panda ₯’ 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

...Then my interpretation of the word "incident" must not be how you interpret it then. On that note, week-long WikiBreak for me! (I just love it when I step into WikiDrama!) Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• @PBS: Did you discuss this refactor of User:In ictu oculi's talk page comments before you made it, as WP:TPO suggests (the guideline, not a how-to page)? Protonk (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour of IP:117.135.194.140

Resolved

I've noticed that the IP 117.135.194.140 (talk, contribs) has been mass-reverting edits by a single editor (said editor's userpage, talkpage) with the listed edit reason being what appears to be a personal attack ("Revert Nazi troll adding fictional country") rather than simply CSD-A11/CSD-G3-ing them. Diffs can be seen from contribs page, though for sake of thoroughness in reporting, are here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (not technically a reversion) 7 8 9 10 and still ongoing. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 00:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Please ping me or notify me on my talkpage if more information is required. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as open proxy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Severe Uncivil behavior by User:Stoxxman

Stoxxman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour can be summarized just by this single edit alone: [[78]]

But other uncivil edits include - basically every single post after his third: [[79]]

Warned the editor[[80]] to no avail: He literally continued his attack seconds after my warning.

Sidenote: This edit [[81]] may/may not be a related spoof to frame another editor. But 2 accounts attacking this editor with a single purpose, without any common background beforehand is too suspicious. and I am inclined to lean towards WP:DUCK especially since User:Stoxxman isn't even apparently actively editing on the Kleargear article. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Stoxxman for 24 hours for the personal attacks; he had received a final warning. However, an IP has since posted to the user talk page, linking to an off-wiki attack post. Someone else may wish to semi-protect it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

</facepalm> Will be up to Talkpage's user to request then... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Stoxxman is a clear SPA sockpuppet of 71.19.182.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who Gamaliel recently blocked. Can you semi-protect Talk:Kleargear? Ricky81682 said he would do so if the IP user vandalized the talk page again, but Ricky hasn't logged on since the vandalism really exploded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've since blocked 71.19.182.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was the one continuing the personal attacks. I noted an old block notice on their user talk page, and both IPs have been previously blocked, with a slew of others, based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuestionNadaAns/Archive. Callanecc did the blocking then; rather than prevent all IPs from editing the article talk page, perhaps this should again be treated as ban evasion? In which case an SPI on Stoxxman should be opened. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would endorse any solution that reduces the amount of ranting, raving, and defamation on Talk:Kleargear. But, yes, these accounts are all clearly related to QuestionNadaAns, and they have all been disruptive since November 2013, when the article was first created. They use the same exact idiosyncratic language and continue the same arguments. These vendetta-driven IP vandals are incredibly frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI case opened; those of you familiar with the situation may want to add further diffs. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another IP is back at it [[82]].... look like the guy's running down his list of available IPs. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki comments, possible multiple policy infringements

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

---

There is an article which I discovered off-wikipedia, here (please copy and paste): http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ . The article is defamatory of Wikipedia and in the comments there are multiple defamatory comments about Sue Gardner. I do not know the Wikipedia user names for those making the comments, but I thought that the nature of the article and subsequent comments ought to be brought to the attention of administrators. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How can something posted off-Wikipedia be a 'policy infringement'? Evidently 'A Voice for Men' don't like Wikipedia - and given their views, I'd have to say that I'm glad they don't - but are you seriously suggesting that we should be trying to stop them posting their opinions? As for Sue Gardner, I very much doubt that she objects to being described as "a feminist ideologue" for supporting greater contribution to Wikipedia by women. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy is correct. You cannot control through Wikipedia policy and guidelines (which may be ignored) off Wikipedia comments about Wikipedia and its board or its editors. There are no policy violations. Not exactly sure what is meant by "infringement".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over other websites. Even if we knew which policies you think they've "infringed", our policies only apply to content posted here. Reyk _YO! 02:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - just worth being aware of, when so-called "Men's Rights" editors try to push their fringe viewpoints on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry BB, could you expand on that. I am afraid I don't get the connection.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mistaken, but i think BB was pointing out that the viewpoints of these charming fellows over at VoiceforMen are worth 'bookmarking' - we might see some of them pushing that viewpoint here in different articles under the guise of anons and the like. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just doing a search for the word "tromp" should be enough to identify any input here. Interesting turn of phrase, that. --Pete (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I think it is safe to say that they're here already. Goto Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 24 and look for the violence against men / Massacres of men discussions. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I love how one group of people berate us for not being inclusive enough of women, and another for being hostile to men. I mean, you just cannot win. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is of any value to this board. I think it is just giving them attention they really do not deserve here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reply (to all) The two reasons that I didn't name particular policy breaches was (a) I don't usually report things so I could name one policy that has been breached and be wrong and simultaneously miss a policy breach - which is 'obvious' to an an experienced administrator - entirely, and (b) I didn't like having to repeat what had been said. But, with all due respect to Mark Miller, participation rates for women are unlikely to improve unless we roll our sleeves up and get stuck in.

With that in mind, I'll take a second run at it.

(from the comments section of the article)

"Wikipedia, a project I used to love and hold dear, can’t defend itself from those who wish to subvert it and who have the resources to quash dissent."

Can't, or won't? The feeling I've gotten is that this lady Sue Gardner, who runs Wikimedia (Wikipedia's parent organization), is a feminist ideologue.

I think, AndyTheGrump, not just being called a "feminist ideologue" but also being accused (at least in the comments section) of being one of those who wish to subvert Wikipedia and quash dissent. In any case, the definition of an ideologue is: noun - An adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic so, the commentor is saying that she wishes to uncompromisingly and dogmatically subvert Wikipedia and quash dissent. That is both using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream and an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence ... which also leads to the policy: personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.

(again, from the comments section of the article)

They have put in some rules and policies, yet, but they're enforced arbitrarily by people who build little fiefdoms and, more importantly, again, groups with MONEY and RESOURCES can just bully out dissenting views with sheer numbers.

There are several things they could do to fix at least some of this, but they likely won't. I'll keep my account, I've got ten years of edits in there, but i find the place disgusting now, and no, not just because of what they do on men's issues, it's that the entire place reeks of bullying.

Isn't this stealth canvassing? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but what can anyone do about it? Report it again if it actually shows up on Wikipedia. Until then, I move that this thread be closed. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

JarlaxleArtemis

Well, this guy: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis is extremely active tonight: Please, guys and gals, watch User_talk:Sepsis_II and User_talk:Sean.hoyland, (Ha, ha: this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Very funny. JarlaxleArtemism have moved on to another IP long before I have filed this report, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you all sleeping?? Have you seen what JarlaxleArtemis is doing?? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and reverted 3 minutes before the above message was left. --Jayron32 04:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Love you. This place should have some "heart emonicons", Cheers, Huldra (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer would suffice. --Jayron32 04:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Confirmed, per checkuser - no other socks - Alison ^❤ 07:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reported a few as well via IRC, but it seems as if it has died down, he's was heavily vandalizing Huldra's talk page but it is protected now as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More trouble with Russavia

Banned user Russavia has created a sock, User:Diplomeditor, who is causing a ton of trouble at the newly created article Régie Malagache‎. Diplomeditor's first- and second-ever edits went straight to that brand new article, the second one naming Russavia explicitly. Related posts:

• New sockpuppet investigation that I filed.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Russavia/Regie
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 July 2

Can someone put a lid on this guy, and protect the new article? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like quick work was performed by several admins. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Someone beat me to blocking him, but I went ahead and unprotected and restored the content. Even if the socktroll's claim that the content was CC0 licensed was true, you can't exactly violate the copyright of something that has legally been placed in to the public domain in most of the world. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another sock blocked. It's amazing to me that an active commons admin is both socking on ENWP and doesn't know how a CC0 license works. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: From an initial look, I'm a bit unsure about this page. Could you elaborate on how the text has been properly released under CC-0? Is there an OTRS ticket involved? Mike V • Talk 06:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No OTRS ticket, but if the troll is in fact Russavia (and it does seem to fit his recent MO,) then no OTRS ticket is really needed. However, without technical evidence proving that the person making the statement was actually Russavia it would not be a bad idea to be cautious and histmerge the original history in to the currently live article, which I'll do myself in the morning assuming no objections - hate doing histmerges when I'm tired. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if the contributions by Russavia were legitimately released to the public domain (which they were not), Wikipedia policy still requires attribution of the material to the public domain source. The material was originally contributed to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA license, and contributions under that license are still copyrighted by the author, and merely licensed to Wikipedia under terms that permit reuse with attribution. That is why cut-and-paste page moves such as Binksternet performed are prohibited, and by Binksternet doing so he was violating Russavia's copyright on the material. By his own statement at the MfD, he used part of Russavia's text. For Binksternet to editwar with a person he believed was, by his own statement, the original author of part of the material in an to attempt to remove a copyvio notice is beyond the pale.

Also, Binksternet's creation of this article was an evasion of the block on creation of Régie Malgache, and quite possibly used material from prior versions of that page as well. It's unacceptable for him to evade a block on page creation simply by using a different transliteration of the title.

In my opinion, at least, Binksternet should be sanctioned. Revent^talk 07:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is pretty clear, if the content wasRussavia's than he needs to be attributed in the page history, even if blocked/banned. That being said, Russavia's actions by maliciously adding a copyright notice, socking, etc are more in clear violation of policy. Per WP:AGF I think that Binksternet was simply trying to create the article and had no intention of maliciously denying Russavia attribution, and as Kevin Gorman already said, he'll handle the history merge in a short while, solving the CC-BY-SA complaint. Honestly as long as the Russavia socks are blocked, and once the history merge is complete, this should be resolved. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that it doesn't matter what licence the content was originally released under originally. If the copyright owner has at any stage agreed to release them in to the public domain, or some other licence without an attribution requirement that is CC & GFDL compatible (while we only require CC for content from other places, we require both for content from contributors so this should apply to content even from banned editors), then there cannot be a copyright violation due to us failing to attribute, no matter what the licence of the original release. We do not have to comply with the 'original' (whatever is meant by that) licence, only any licence including if it's no licence i.e. a release of material in to the public domain.

While it's true we require attribution of public domain material for a number of reasons, including to help establish that there's no copyvio and also to avoid misleading indications about who the copyright holder may be and the licence the material is under, this is a policy issue and not a copyvio one. (Well there may also be legal issues in that it is potentially a criminal offence to falsely claim copyright, but that's still not a copyvio issue.) This doesn't mean it isn't important, but it does mean people (including banned ones) shouldn't claim it's a copyright violation since it's not. Such claims are harmful when untrue for a number of reason.

BTW, since there seems to be some doubt over whether the content was really released in to the public domain, I agree with Kevin Gorman that we need a history merge or some thing else to satisfy the attribution requirement. I'm also unclear if Russavia was the only contributor or there are others who may have a legitimate copyright claim to some of the material. In reality, we probably should do a hist-merge even if it's only Russavia and we have clear evidence of a CC0 release to satisfy wikipedia's attribution requirements of all material including public domain material, although there are other options which may satisfy our policy requirements. And let me repeat again whatever we do or don't do in such a situation, there cannot be a copyvio for such material.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nytend beat me to the histmerge - I would've done so last night, but still have some hesitancy to do them when I'm tired. Since I've interacted with Binksternet often enough I am not going to try to close the section myself since people have brought up his behavior, but will say I see no reason to sanction him. The blocked account inserting the copyvio template never even suggested that an actual copyright violation occurred, and although PD material should be attributed, there's not a 3RR exemption for "editwarring to remove unattributed public domain content" whereas there is one for reverting socks of blocked and banned users. Despite what Revent suggests, I also see nothing wrong with Binksternet creating the article in the first place - Russavia's original draft was written in 2009, wasn't G5able since it predated his block, and Binkster's statement at the MfD that he hadn't seen WP:RUD or hadn't had it actively in mind is reasonable. If we sanctioned every editor who ever copied text from one area of Wikipedia to another without fully satisfying our guidelines and the exact terms of CC-BY-SA, I'm pretty sure we'd sanction most people who have ever done a lot of work in articlespace - violations of WP:RUD and internal copying without attribution are ridiculously common and should be assumed to be good faith in the absence of strong evidence of malice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In case I was not clear, the points that I was pointing out as 'sanctionable' were...

• Evading the block on page creation of Régie Malagache by creating the article under a different transliteration of the title. This was deliberate, Binksternet explicitly acknowledge that the block existed at the MfD when he noted that he had created Régie Malgache, and..
• Removing a copyright violation notice on material that he himself had posted. Regardless of if it was a legitimate copyvio notice, regardless of if he thought it was posted by a sock, whatever. Copyright violation claims REQUIRE investigation by third parties, usually OTRS. This is something where wiggling your way through the details of Wikipedia policy is irrelevant. It is an ethical and legal issue.

That being said, I think it's clear at the point that Binksternet has been adequately admonished in various locations, and he seems contrite about the copyright issue. As this point, I'm willing to step back from requesting that he be sanctioned... it's not as if it would serve the purpose of stopping an ongoing problem. I would like to suggest to Binksternet and the other regular readers of this page, however, that they take a hard look at Wikipedia's content polices, how those are different from guidelines, and ponder exactly why they are here.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to delete quality articles that meet the content policies merely because of who wrote them. The purpose of this project is not to be the "Wikipedia Online" social media game, where you score points by 'whacking' things. The 'rules' of the project are the five pillars, everything else is supposed to be an application of those through common sense and consensus. Revent^talk 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I performed the histmerge because it was clearly the best thing to do, regardless of whether we needed attribution for copyright compliance — having a split edit history is never a good thing. I acted on the request for sanction by giving a warning; we wouldn't block anyone for copyright infringement the first time around, unless it was possibly someone doing it on a massive scale, and this kind of thing definitely wouldn't qualify for a block unless the party in question had previously been warned for multiple copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Revent, bullshit copyright violation claims by sockpuppets of banned editors don't need investigation by a third party or OTRS, particularly when they claim an article is violating a CC0 license. If they did, someone could, say, an automated trollfarm to force all prominent ENWP pages to permanent semiprotection by writing a script to replace the contents of a page with a copyvio template with the name of the last user to edit the page.

Nyttend is correct that a histmerge for attribution is clearly the best path regardless of the validity of the CC0 release, but it doesn't make sense for you to simultaneously complain that people aren't here to build an encyclopedia and then try to ask for sanctions of a user who created an article but made a hugely common mistake by copying internal content without adequate attribution. If we sanctioned every person who did so, I can guarantee I could sanction 90% of people with over 5k mainspace edits. You also misunderstand the purpose of the create protection (salt) put on the original title - it wasn't intended to prevent a good faith user from creating a page, and creating a legitimate article at an alternate transliteration of a page that has been salted is not block evasion in the same sense that, er, actual block evasion is. Articles are create protected when they're repeatedly created in a disruptive fashion, and any good faith user indicating that they wanted to create an article at that title could have gotten any admin to lift the salt. Creating an article that has had an alternate title salted is not in any way sanctionable unless the new creation is disruptive in the same way the old was, although it's a good idea to ask for the salt to be lifted and create a redirect so that people can find the article regardless of what title they type in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam?

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

---

What is Wikipedia:InkCase? Mere spam or an unknown project by the WMF? --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a misplaced userdraft - I considered moving it to userspace, but it's basically unusable vanispamcruftisement, so I've speedy-deleted it instead. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

An RfC initiated by a sock of a blocked user

The IP 101.0.** is a self admitted sock [83] of blocked user [84]. The sock started an RfC Talk:Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)#RfC:_Length_of_summary in an area under ArbComs R&I discretionary sanctions.

What is the procedure? I was going to strike through all of their comments but that strikes through the RfC language. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say, since multiple other editors have already responded, just leave the question up as it stands, maybe with a note ("xyz has been blocked as a sock of ..."), and then hat off or strike out all further comments wherever they might otherwise be taken as valid opinions feeding into the consensus-seeking procedure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'd do too. It would unduly penalize the contributing editors in good standing by invalidating the entire RFC, but the IP's comments themselves should be struck and not given weight when determining consensus. -- Atama頭 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Request topic ban for Andy Dingley

I have had enough of the harassment, and personal attacks. His persistent support of the trolling and harassing sockmaster User:Formal Appointee Number 6 is getting old. Andy persistently throws veiled references/accusations whenever and where ever he can. Andy's most recent edit [85] has pushed me over the edge. At what point does this need to reach before its stopped? Werieth (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What topic are you asking him to be banned from? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

He accuses you of being a sock of the infamous Betacommand, yes? Are you? If not, it would be best to deny it in some prominent place, such as the SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly denied it. Werieth (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And Andy has been warned multiple times to stop the harassment. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Veiled? You are a sock of Betacommand. When detailed behavioural evidence for this is presented, your NFC-hardline admin friends threaten (and indeed do) block and ban those presenting it. This makes it impossible to resolve the issue.

Your recent behaviour in stripping cites from articles has been dickish in the extreme and many editors have challenged you on this.

To be absolutely clear here, my last comment was [Werieth's] refusal to either not remove cites altogether, or to at least stop whilst it's being discussed, is just the sort of behaviour that Betacommand was banned for in the first place. and I stand by every aspect of that. It's now at a point where I don't even care about the socking, your behaviour under the Werieth account alone is following just the same path as Betacommand did, and what caused his block.

Why is WP enforcement for socking so random and partisan anyway? Someone who's not a friend of Kww or FuturePerfect is blocked immediately, but if you share the same viewpoint as some friendly admins on another policy, like NFC, it's a free ticket to sock as much as you like. Even someone like Hengistmate, who has been trolling me for years, can finally shoot himself in his own sock by mis-posting, yet he's ignored at both ANI or SPI. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone please remind me what NFC is? EEng (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No foreign currency.--v/r - TP 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny. Besides "National Football Conference", here it's being used to mean "Non-Free Content". Betacommand was an extremely obnoxious warrior on the subject, and it took at least a year or two before a sufficient number of admins and other users got sufficiently fed up and saw to it that he got banned. That episode left a very bitter taste. It's understandable that seemingly similar behavior by a relatively new editor would raise yellow-to-red flags. But I say again, it's the behavior of the current named user, Werieth, which Dingley should focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I thought it was funny. EEng (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As always, canvas early, canvas often Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise TLSuda Black_Kite. Future Perfect has (as predicted) jumped to your command and has started blanking content from the SPI [86] [87]

If we cannot discuss your behaviour on the ALLCAPS pages, we cannot address the question of your socking behaviour. Future Perfect has been warned for this in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you yourself just mention me in this thread? It would have been your own duty to notify me; be thanful for Werieth for helping you out in your own failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What I did was notify those administrators who have already warned you about this harassment, and the need for it to stop. Since you failed to take their advice Im taking the next step to end this. The harassment either needs to stop or Im going to leave. I cannot be a constant target of harassment. And yes since the request I have not removed cites. If you look in the related section above I noted a change in methodology to reduce the number of cites that would need removed (which is hopefully just a bare handful) and I havent run into any of those cases since. Werieth (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall TLSuda having been involved in this before. But what the hell, he's hard-line on NFC and I recently dragged him to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Recent_discussions for File:Fredcopeman.jpg, so no doubt you're hoping for another helpful admin from that angle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you dont remember your own talk page. Please see User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Accusations_of_WP:SOCK Werieth (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a pattern of harassment here, and it needs to stop. There is a long-term sockpuppeter whose agenda is to harass Werieth through throwaway socks, always raising that allegation of him being Beta. However plausible that suspicion may be, the repeated use of throwaway socks for no other purpose but casting aspersions on a user cannot be tolerated. Andy Dingley has for a long time assumed a pattern of enabling and supporting that harasser, by re-posting his rants after they are removed, defending him with spurious claims of "lack of evidence" on SPI reports (all the socks are so easy to spot on behavioural grounds that they are always quickly duck-blocked), and by echoing and multiplying the complaints against Werieth whenever the sockmaster offers him an opportunity. This, too, is harassment, and I am quite willing to block Andy over it if it continues. As for the suspicions against Werieth, people repeatedly had the chance to submit legitimate evidence to the Betacommand SPI; they were repeatedly closed as inconclusive. At some point, when you can't prove your case, you simply have to shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Topic ban from what? Do you mean an interaction ban? the panda ₯’ 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Im not sure that a interaction ban would be sufficient, as Andy can and does make references/accusations to others about me. A complete ban on the topic would cover that. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  An interaction ban does include talking about the other party to others, so that would be covered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  However there are times and discussions (On different notice boards and what not) where we run across each other and nothing happens. In those cases where Andy doesnt take shots at me, there is constructive results. I also dont want to have an issues where we accidentally cross paths on a noticeboard or article and dont notice that the other has done so recently too. Because this problem is isolated to a topic I went that route, as the least disruptive method. Werieth (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is why we tolerate Andy's reposting and enabling of this material. I don't see why the block would only happen if the behaviour continues. Andy has been around long enough to know better. If it weren't for some long-running content disputes between Andy and I, I would have indefed him long ago. This seems like as good of a time as any for someone to pull the trigger.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• SPI and harassment issues aside, I am curious about why Werieth feels the need to canvass completely uninvolved admins on this issue.[88][89][90] Inappropriate. —Dark 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: They are not uninvolved admins. All three of them have warned Andy about the same behavior before and told him it needs to stop. Werieth (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Since when was it common practice to notify admins who have warned the editor in the past? ANI only requires you to notify the reported party. Also, just because they have warned the editor in the past does not make them involved. And naturally since they have warned him previously, they would be more inclined to ask for sanctions. Hardly a non-partisan audience, and a blatant violation of canvassing guidelines. —Dark 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  @DarkFalls: I just consider it common curtsey. I could have gone to any of them and requested that a block be placed (Something I dont feel the need for when a TBAN or IBAN would be a better solution) and it would have happened. However I tried to take the less drastic road and maintain a collegial editing environment by coming here and requesting a TBAN. Given that the user in question is persisting in behavior prohibited by three different admins notifying them of the breach and my intended route to resolution would be considered common curtsey. I did not want to create the perception that I was trying to go around them, or "over their heads" as the term is. This is similar to notifying arbcom in cases where arbcom prohibits an activity. I guess its just a perspective issue. Had I wanted to canvass I would have picked better targets, and I wouldn't have worded the notice as neutrally as I could. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  A similar case can be made for when an admin discusses a block with the blocking admin prior to unblocking. Its not required, but more often than not the simple curtsey results in a better understanding of the situation and a better conclusion to the problem. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think its necessary common for this practice, but some of us have been mentioned in this discussion anyways, so I don't see the problem with it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As I now see Andy Dingley had a very explicit warning about administrative sanctions in this matter from TLSuda less than a month ago [91], and his present behaviour is quite clearly in contravention of that warning, I have gone ahead and blocked him for a week. I'd very much recommend we place a formal interaction ban on him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. This has gone on for years, and has gotten way out of control for such an experienced user. Andy is very skilled and has many things to contribute here, but I feel he has let these petty disputes get in the way of his positive work. I would support an interaction ban for Andy in this situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this whole situation is going to end well.--v/r - TP 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be easy to either point to (if it exists) or create (if not existing) an SPI that collects the evidence of Andy's accusations? Then, that collection could be adjudicated as being acceptable or not acceptable. This wouldn't be the first hard SPI report every done, or reviewed and ultimately decided (I'm thinking of the recent one by DrMies, et.al., regarding a particular long-term prolific banned editor). Repeated (and strident) accusations of socking without evidence is a form of PA, or so I thought. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: such an SPI has already been filed, and closed. Andy isnt happy with the results thus this persistent harassment. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For the benefit of others, here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacommand/Archive#09_December_2013. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was not involved in the Betacommand case nor have I interacted significantly with Werieth, but I can see that the SPI case accusing Werieth of being banned editor Betacommand has never been proven one way or the other, the trail being too cold for checkuser. Instead, the case was closed as inconclusive—twice. In March 2013, the editor LessHeard vanU came briefly out of retirement to say Werieth was Betacommand, and this report got the first inconclusive closure. Andy's report in December 2013 got the same treatment. Both LessHeard vanU and Andy Dingley continue to believe that they are correct, that a banned editor has returned, which explains the anger shown by Andy. I think the two SPI cases were poorly submitted rather than incorrect. LHvU and AD should have included more diffs and other forms of proof. If they had, we would not be at this juncture now. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that they did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I am in exactly the same position. If one looks at the behavioural evidence presented in the ChildofMidnight SPI above, that was enough to effectively prove a connection even when/if the CU came back negative. If the level of evidence in the Beta/Werieth SPI came up to that standard, like Kww I would block Werieth myself. But it simply isn't, and when Andy repeatedly enables a banned editor to repeat the claims after being told multiple times to stop it or face a block, I don't really see what other outcome there can be. However, after Andy's block expires, a TBAN/IBAN would be the way forward here, I suspect. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I was pinged because I previously warned Andy about this behaviour. This will end happily for everyone when Andy Dingley either (a) stops enabling a disruptive (and almost certainly banned/indefblocked) editor whose only raison d'etre is to harrass Werieth, or (b) comes up with some conclusive evidence (we're not even in DUCK territory yet). If he doesn't, he needs to be prevented from doing so; an interaction ban would seem easiest. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's possible the OP is victim to the unfortunate coincidence of having been created a few weeks after Betacommnd's final edit in the spring of 2012, and from possibly focusing on some of the same issues that got Betacommand banned - hence the yellow flags. Were any socks of Betacommand discovered, and if so, during what time interval(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @Baseball Bugs:

• 5 February 2012 Betacommand's last edit to en.Wikipedia [92]
• 6 February 2012 Werieth commences editing Simple Wikipedia [93]
• 15 February 2012 Betacommand blocked [94]
• 12 March 2012 Werieth commences editing Commons [95]
• 4 June 2012 Werieth commences editing en.Wikipedia [96]

Also, notice how Werieth habitually skips the apostrophe in I'm. Now search this page and see who uses that spelling. This is Betacommand.

As for socks of Betacommand, there may be other lists, but I just found Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Betacommand.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have new evidence regarding the Betacommand suspicion that has not yet been submitted and deemed to be inconclusive at SPI, then by all means feel free to file a reopened case there. Failing that, re-hashing the same suspicions over and over again is disruptive, so don't do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the earlier investigations. This is such a big fat loudly stomping around saying "I'm a sock" duck, that I don't need to. What I can't figure out is why you and User:Kww are protecting him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I saw recently, simply claiming "this is a sock" without solid evidence can get you sanctioned (and that was on an account that's a really obvious DUCK). Black Kite kite (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • @Baseball Bugs: I honestly havent done that much research but beta looks to be a free content hardliner, and pushed for almost complete removal of non-free media. On the other hand I have a fairly moderate position and have uploaded about 350 non-free files already and am far from being done. I honestly have better things to do then play politics and investigate bogus claims that I am not myself. If people want to continue supporting Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs) and their style of behavior Ill be more than willing to avoid the toxic environment of this wiki and move to somewhere more inviting. But I do see where the claims from the media, and the loss of editors is coming from. Few people are willing to endure this crap. Ive been thinking for a while if its really worth it to continue to contribute to a project that fails to address toxic behavior? I guess Ill find out with how this discussion ends. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• My two cents, it appears obvious looking at Werieth's first edits he was/is not a "new editor". No idea if he is Betacommand or someone else (even if the timing between the two accounts and a lot of behavioral affinities would strongly suggest it). --Cavarrone 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Followup discussion about archive.is links

This sub-thread factored out from the above for clarity. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you look the most recent edits I was doing while removing archive.is I was recovering the original url's and hadnt been removing references. But yet again more attacks from you. Werieth (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"the most recent edits " means little. You're good at stopping for a moment, only to resume immediately afterwards.

Can you say (I know you can but is it true?) that you have not removed entire cites, since you were requested by multiple editors to stop doing so during the discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The OP's talk page has a number of other users telling him to stop what he's doing with citations, so it's not just Dingley complaining. To me, the sockpuppetry question is a distraction. If the OP is going against consensus, he should be stopped, regardless of whether or not he's a sock of the infamous and banned NFC warrior called Betacommand. Dingley should focus on the OP's allegedly bad behavior under his own ID, and forget about Betacommand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Just because people complain isnt a valid reason to not do something. If that where the case admins wouldn't be able to delete or do anything. Just about every action that an admin takes makes someone upset. As an admin does more work the number of those who show up on their talk page to complain also goes up. It doesn't make the arguments for keeping articles on the user's pet rock any more valid. Find any admin who is fairly active and you will find a number of sections on their talk page or its history of people complaining. More often than not all that is needed is re-educating the user, not sanctioning the admin. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins naturally attract trouble. It's part of their job. I didn't know you were an admin. Your user page doesn't have the "admin" logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Im not an admin, however I do tend to do the cleanup/policy enforcement work. Due to the similar nature of what admins do I thought it would be a good analogy to present, that would be widely understood. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you're not an admin. If multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, regardless of alleged "consensus", you should stop doing it pending further discussion. Continuing to take a controversial path leads to ANI - and with someone like Betacommand, ultimately to being banned. You don't want to follow in Betacommand's self-defeating path, do you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Werieth's removal of archive.is links is an action agreed to by the community through two (now three?) RFCs about the issue. Yes, there are editors upset with this, but the RFCs clearly have shown no acceptance for these links anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If consensus were so clear, I don't think you would have multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There will always be people on the wrong side of an RfC/policy decision that disagree with it. Often those users continue to disagree/complaint long after the fact. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors? Usually not. If a given RFC was closed in a way that seems fishy to the "losing side", it will continue to be debated and challenged. That's usually a sign of a poor closure and a lack of real consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The first RFC on the matter that included the removal of the archive.is was closed neutrally by User:Hobit (whom I would consider a very good judge of consensus/middle ground from past discussions despite numerous disagreements on other topics). Those that are complaining about that either weren't aware of this issue, or as Werieth says, didn't get their way are may be engaging in forum shopping to get that change reversed) --MASEM (t) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some, there's only been one RFC closed in support of removing archive.is links Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. There was a second RFC which was closed as malformed Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2. Obviously you can't read anything in to that other than that people have to follow proper RFC procedures when opening one (such as phrasing it neutrally and not canvasing). The third RFC is ongoing Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. As a participant, I don't think I should comment on the likely outcome but I think it's clear it's not WP:SNOW. It's also worth remembering that whatever the community agreed to, I'm pretty sure we never agreed to the removal of legitimate citations in their entirety, when they didn't actually need a URL and the original still working URL could be recovered from the archive.is link which happened in at least one case. (In another case, the original URL was dead but the info that was removed about the citation was enough to find another copy.) I think Wereith has promised to be more careful, perhaps even ensure such cases never happen again (I haven't been following that well) but the fact it took so long to get there (if it's been agreed now, it was only after me and others saying many times that should never happen and getting ambigious responses in reply) is the main reason the whole thing is so distressing to me. Sure the archive.is links need to go and many of them can already go. But is our only choice for removal someone who's going to turn strong supporters of removal (like me) against their actions? And how much time have we already wasted on these silly discussions when we could be removing archive.is links properly? Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Threads refactored. The below was in response to the post of Werieth from 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC):

• • • • You have to decide what your priorities are. I've been hassled off and on by a particularly useless troll for the last five years, at least. I've stopped contributing pictures and mostly stopped contributing to articles. But I still think Wikipedia is worth defending. Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, and it won't change its rules to allow better prosecution of trolls who make Wikipedia look stupid. Your best bet is to find something relatively non-controversial to work on and let the warriors fight the battles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Doing the manual work that was mandated by a properly closed RFC to remove links to a highly questionable site seems like non-controversial work (granted, the issue of removing complete citations is a fair point but Werieth stopped to fix that), and we're here now. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
          • One might think so, sure. But as soon as something becomes controversial, that's a good time to leave it alone and go do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
            • How can someone doing the actions of a properly closed RFC be controversial, from the larger standpoint of WP? That would mean no work would ever get done on WP as long as someone raised a voice to complain. If there was no RFC, or the actions were not those described by the closer of the RFC, you'd have your argument, but we're talking something that is supposed to be the result of a consensus and yes, there will be people unaware of that result and will go "Well, wait...", that happens, but there's also people that did not like that result and want to challenge it further, but that's not how RFCs work, where you keep tossing things at a wall to get them to stick. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
              • If it was "properly" closed, you wouldn't be having multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                • That's... not correct. If we have an RfC where 200 people participate (this is a big website), which ends with a result of 150 against 50, you can reasonably expect multiple users from the minority to go and complain. You'd be correct if you phrase it this way: you wouldn't be having many editors complaining about it, but multiple? → Call me Hahc21 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • If there is true consensus and a proper close, the No-voters will usually see reason. If it looks fishy, or like it was ramrodded (which, believe it or not, has been known to happen), then you've got a problem. But the core problem is the amount of energy being expended on such a trivial matter as to whether to retain certain links. How does such a fight serve the average reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • By reducing the number of links in Wikipedia to sites whose owners appear to illegally compromise other people's computers for their own ends.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • There's a reason we have DRV which often gets populated with "I didn't get my way" complaints. There is almost always negative response to how a RFC or the like is closed. That's fine. You don't take it out by trying to smear the name of an editor if you have a beef with them. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • That's why I say that Dingley should forget about Betacommand and focus on whatever he thinks the OP here is doing wrong. And looking at those RFC's, there was by no means a "clear consensus", and that likely accounts for the ill will it generated. There's plenty of speculation about the "legality" of whatever the archive guy is doing. The better approach would be to treat it as simple spam - and to retain the template that points out there could be dead links. Those two things would serve the reader better than this brute force "there's clear consensus because I say so" kind of argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
                        • I think we're against a problem akin to presenting highly technical evidence to a jury. Most of the people that actually do networking for a living or spend their time looking at proxies, botnets, and whatnot look at the edits and say that the chances of that being a legally obtained set of proxies is vanishingly close to zero. In the true Wikipedia way, we have people that say "I don't know anything about IP addresses, but no one has presented any evidence of illegality". Our opinion about whether there's a problem is weighted equally in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don'l think I;ve ever commented on the archive.is issue< & at present I have no clear opinion about it > But I consider the indiscriminate removal of the links while AfC3 is underway to be uncooperative editing' ; because it will take a good deal of work to undo if the AfC does not sustain the present position, and that clearly is at least a distinct possibility: I'd suggest that the removal stop for the present. (I will now go look at the RfC, so if I do express an opinion there, that's not a contradiction that I'm presently of no fixed opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Everybody, can we please keep separate the issue of what to do with the archive.is links and the issue of what to do with Andy Dingley? The two are only tenuously connected. This here is supposed to be the thread about Andy Dingley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock

Will someone block this sock User:TryNotToFly/sandbox? Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock notification not working

The admin unblock notification system seems to have stalled. User:64.4.93.100 is trying to get an admin to unblock him/her but it looks as though the request isn't visible to admins. Any help appreciated . Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The unblock category isn't broken. This IP's request has been correctly included in Category:Requests for unblock but the nice table of all requests (maintained by User:Cyberpower678) stalled out about three days ago. Any admin is welcome to proceed to the user's talk page at User talk:64.4.93.100 and comment or take action there. This is one of the two IPs that I blocked per this edit warring complaint about mass addition and removal of quotes from articles. The two IPs involved got up to about 7RR each at Oona King before the report was closed. My own suggestion would be to wait for the 3-day block to expire, but anyone who thinks differently can go ahead and review the IP's request. The unblock rationale is

I didn't know about the talk pages so I gave my reasons in the edit summary. But the other person didn't give any reasons and didn't tell me why they were stalking me to undo all my edits so I didn't know what to do. After the report I found the talk pages and gave my reasons there instead of undoing the other person but you blocked me the next day while I was on holiday so now I can't go back and finish discussing. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Since this IP is the person who filed the 3RR report, it is puzzling they would be so new to Wikipedia that they didn't know about using talk pages. The block might be lifted if we had some reason for optimism about their future behavior. Since the unblock rationale does not evince any understanding, I would not be persuaded myself. Anyone who reads the WP:QUOTE guideline will be aware it gives no basis for either mass addition or removal of quotes. Each case needs to be considered individually. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP editor has now blanked comments on his actions on his Talk page on three consecutive occasions and within a few minutes of each contribution - in spite of a warning from an admin. Whilst acknowledging the right to remove items from individuals Talk page, the comments are meant to be constructive. The wholesale deletion of quotes from numerous articles with a refusal to undertake any transfer to Wikiquote smacks of vandalism and should be stopped before we are presented with another round of mass deletions. David J Johnson (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, be mindful of WP:BLANKING. Don't get screwed by the 3RR as I almost had on a talk page. If the IP wants to remove the last comment on his page, then he may do so. While the IP could be further blocked for warring if he continues to remove the comments, the user replacing the comments after their removal is just as viable to be blocked. Ben^Yes? 03:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible Reputation Management bot deleting sources

Several new accounts doing same type of edits: removing sources with this edit summary "findarticles defunkt since long time ago; no archive available"

• Online Reputation Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseraviq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mrs Ghundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wilok Colo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ballisrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharly Fiol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Box Office Watch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts are created fast one after another and doing the same type of edits.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

See #New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" Werieth (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: can you adjust filter 620? Werieth (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. thanks. I'll post there. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Same basic concept, so I went ahead and updated 620 to deal with this.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww: Can you clarify what 620 is? Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Filter 620 refers to the abuse filter (WP:EF) rule 620, which was created to stop the socks from removing archive.is links while a discussion is ongoing. Adjusting it to also handle this new variant should be trivial. Werieth (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's excellent. Thank you for the clarification. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a spate of these earlier today. I have blocked all of these accounts for abuse of multiple accounts. Keith D (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• All  Confirmed as being the same account. Blocked about another half-dozen, too - Alison ^❤ 00:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Silly Season (per Jimbo Talk page) copyvio violation at Tracy Kraft-Tharp

I've tagged the page, and reverted twice, but y'all might not like it if I revert again, so here I am. My edit summaries are clear enough, and I'm about to sort out the mess I left at the Talk page. I have notified the editor concerned, and it appears he is doing it wholesale -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing obvious WP:COPYVIO is exempt under WP:3RRNO. Ive reverted it to let you have piece of mind if you dont want to edit anymore. Amortias (T)(C) 20:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I left a final warning. I am also concerned that this user is abusing Wikipedia to campaign on behalf of the relevant politicians. MER-C 21:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Appears they've done identical additions of information from the same website on various other articles. Will make a start on removing the issues hopefully nip it in the bud. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of campaign pamphlets are masquerading as articles. Fortunately they are unsourced as well. Collect (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Aye, think we got em all between us (damn you edit pinching people *shakes fist*) Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

than you very much everybody, I will remember about the exemption. Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue again

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

Background behaviour on Herbxue:

Herbxue is well aware of the sanctions.

Herbxue deleted TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was No consensus - disputed statement, not a summary of body, under discussion at TCM talk page.

Herbxue deleted again TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was Undid revision 606451839 by Barney the barney barney (talk) Only not disputed if you are too lazy to follow discussion to build consensus.

Herbxue restored unsourced text that was not found in the citation.

Herbxue deleted while this simply is because TCM is largely pseudoscience, without a rational mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments; advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients. He also deleted similar text at the Chinese herbology page.

Current disruption by Herbxue below:

Herbxue is a WP:SPA editing a very narrow scope of articles related only to acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Herbxue has a history of reverting experienced good faith editors such a User:Roxy the dog, User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV and User:Jmh649, For example, Herbxue reverted User:Jmh649 but he made a bad edit and was reverted for good reason. His explanation for his revert is lacking. For example, he claims in part: So I acted too quick and got one wrong. I have a hard time keeping up with Quack Guru. But not being able to keep up with QuackGuru was not related to his bad edit.

I specifically asked him about another revert of User:Jmh649's edit. Obviously he is refusing to give a specific explanation why he thought his revert was appropriate. For example he claimed: "I was restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page and a clear edit summary." But there was no good explanation on the talk page for the edit. It was explained that Surveys are not a great source of evidence. Thus we should separate these points into two sentence. Not notable enough for the lead. Herbxue's comment on the talk page made no sense, especially the part "You can't cherry pick only the parts of a source that you like.". He claimed he "misread Doc James' comment".

Herbxue wrote: "Not satisfying in the least. You're saying "my questionable skeptic buddy gets to undo ANYTHING he wants and its up to you to redo all the work he (Redacted) up" - I just can't accept that. You need to get support before undoing everyone else's work, especially when you are a previously banned editor with an ownership problem. And as far as being "used to" (Redacted), I have been since 2010 so don't worry about that, doesn't mean I'm not gonna call you on that dismissive and unhelpful response, or QG on his underhanded (Redacted).[97] After being told about his incivility he agreed to correct his comment and replaced the curse words. Earlier Herbxue wrote: Sorry Kww my beef is with QG and my recent comments were directed at Brangifer, not you. I was over the top, but I think he understands my frustration. His "beef" is with WP:PAG, not with me according to the evidence presented.

He has been uncivil in the past too. He replied to another editor and wrote: As an outsider you can CHOOSE to interpret that to mean it was an accident that had nothing to do with traditional theory, but people choosing to use that herb (the reason we want to know if it works) did so based on that traditional theory. His explanation for what he meant as "outsider" can be found here. Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Herbxue

Comments from Herbxue:

Most of the edit summaries QG presents above as evidence of my "bad editing" are quite clear - on the rare occasion that I actually edit in the article itself (as opposed to the talk page) I give detailed edit summaries that often refer to the current talk page discussion about the edits at hand. With a couple of recent exceptions, including inappropriate swearing at Brangifer (which I quickly edited upon Doc James recommendation), I stand behind 99.5% of my edits. I am often in the minority here, and when it is clear that an edit I am trying to make is just not going to be accepted by others, I back down. The closest thing to an edit war that I have engaged in lately is the issue surrounding the use of an editorial in Nature to justify saying "TCM is pseudoscience" in the lede at TCM. When I first removed it, my explanation was that it was inappropriate for WP to make a POV conclusion in an article lede. I was reverted, and on the talk page I responded to Alexbrn saying I'm "dropping it for now". Later, other editors noticed I was on to something important, and also removed the definitive pseudoscience statement, but for other reasons. So, I proposed, on numerous occasions, that it is a notable opinion and we should simply present it in quotations with in-text citation. This lead to extensive contentious discussion at the talk page, and while that discussion was very active, with no clear consensus yet, QG started inserting the language in other TCM-related articles. This seemed inappropriate to me as it was clear there was no consensus yet and the right thing would be to wait for consensus on the source and the wording. So, I reverted his insertion of that contentious edit at the other articles. That appears to be edit warring on my part because I removed the same text several times, but I stand behind those edits as good faith edits. At some point, QG did agree to my suggestion of in-text attribution and added it. I did erroneously revert him ONE more time, and when he pointed out "I did include the attribution" I responded with "mea culpa" and thanked him for the compromise.

Shortly after that he was topic banned, I don't remember what the exact issue was there, but I think now he is out for revenge or just making sport. Look at my talk page where he is clearly baiting me into… I don't know what. I scolded him on his talk page once when he started edit warring again, then he just relentlessly harassed me at my talk page. Not sure why, I think its fun for QG. I wish he could use his considerable editing skills and apparent surplus of free time for more productive edits instead of always starting drama. Herbxue (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya again

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background behaviour on Jayaguru-Shishya:

Jayaguru-Shishya is well aware of the sanctions.

On April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[98] that failed V.[99] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[100] and did not summarise the body. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment. Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[101] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at CAM articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[102] where there was no consensus in the first place.[103][104][105] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[106] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[107] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour.

Current disruption by Jayaguru-Shishya below:

Jayaguru-Shishya restored text that was outdated POV. The outdated source from 1997 has warning in red that the source is outdated.[108] After it was deleted again then he agreed it was reasonable to delete it. See Talk:Acupuncture#This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes.

There was an objection to the misplaced text but it was restored against consensus by Jayaguru-Shishya. The edit summary was "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it: WP:CON "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections..." <- no objections so far, and I'm in support | Also: (talk page)"[109]

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[110] Jayaguru-Shishya commented on the talk page to support whatever Middle8 wanted to do to the article.

Jayaguru-Shishya also wrote on the talk page: "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article."[111] Jayaguru-Shishya commented again on the talk page to support whatever Middle8 wanted to do to the article (without any specific explanation). Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Middle 8 again

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions and is aware of the 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he added the part "especially in developed countries" and "often"[112] He removed the FV tag despite not fixings the original research. I explained at the talk page that the part "often" was original research. The current text say: "Many of the serious events were reported from developed countries and many were due to malpractice.[5]" This is accurate and according to the source.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he wrote ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The current text says: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

Misleading text to the lede again: "an average of one death every two years was reported internationally."[113][114]

Misleading text to the lede about the numbers again.[115][116] The current text says: "Between 2000 and 2009, at least ninety-five cases of serious adverse events including five deaths were reported to have resulted from acupuncture.[5]"

Middle 8 added to the lede "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Middle 8 also rewrote the text to say but not in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists in the body of the article. Middle8 ignored my concerns on the talk page but after User:Jmh649 commented on the talk page Middled8 claimed he misread the source. See Talk:Acupuncture#Original research in the article again. Rather than take full responsibility for his poor edit he partially blamed me because he thought my objection was vague and unclear. Editor was informed of the ANI discussion here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not particularly crazy about his responses on other editors' user talk pages to this ANI notice ([117] and [118]). It's not necessary to be running around making comments on other editors' motivations... regardless of how tense a situation may be. I would note that QG's summary above is fairly bland in that regard—perhaps too much so. As to the first paragraph (dealing with "often"), I would be willing to accept that as a misconception/mistake, depending on whether the editor in question had recently come across this fine distinction (such things can be forgotten). The second paragraph ("and therefore preventable") is possibly acceptable (depending on precisely what the source says), though I would agree it's probably better left as it was. An important point of WP:V/WP:NOR is that it is not a prohibition on summarizing sources, but on drawing conclusions that sources themselves do not draw. I agree the third paragraph is not good, and in fact that Middle 8's first edit summary suggests an almost POINTy intention; that said, I can potentially agree that it seems pointless to mention deaths at such a low rate... it seems unlikely that putting it so prominently in the lede rises to the level of due weight. The fourth paragraph makes my concerns of a POINTy intention seem more relevant... that is, that Middle 8 seems intent on minimizing the prominence given to the deaths in the lede through wording, albeit wording reflective of what a source says. As to what happened at the talk page... I think my position above jibes well with Doc's comment that the results of the survey data just aren't notable enough for the lede. In short, I think the meat of this dispute is that Middle 8 engaged in edit warring over the data in the lede. That's not acceptable, especially given Middle 8 is well aware that discretionary sanctions are available on that article.

As an aside, should the DS notice for WP:ARBPS be clarified to indicate that the definition for "pseudoscience" and "fringe science" may include topics that the noticed editor does not consider pseudoscience or fringe science? Or perhaps some other wording? I can see certain "true believers" not realizing (or arguing that they didn't realize) that the DS notice they got was in reference to a particular field. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Middle8's editing ever went into the realm of edit warring. In the context of acupuncture and TCM, Quack Guru has been making contentious edits for a long time, to the point of getting topic banned recently. It is Quack Guru who seeks to perpetuate the weight problem with regard to the risk level of acupuncture. Several editors (including ones not being complained about by QG now, such as Kww) have noted that the lede should be more representative of the safety record, keeping it in proper context. If you read the edit summaries, Middle8 is not trying to whitewash the subject, but rather trying to present the data as accurately as possible. As Rexss pointed out, some attempts at presenting the data from the Ernst paper may have statistical issues, and may verge into OR. Middle8 acknowledged those concerns and is seeking to build a consensus edit. QG is, in my opinion, just making sport here. Herbxue (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Middle 8:

1. I agree that my talk page comments[119][120] to the other two subjects of QuackGuru's latest spate of ANI posts were gratuitous. But I believe his posts here are themselves largely gratuitous: sincere to a degree, but unnecessary for content disputes and bruised egos. They're also WP:KETTLE-ish, given how hard it is to collaborate with QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is talented, but also has a long history of disruption (e.g. recent examples).
2. Here are my recent mainspace edits; ES's are descriptive. Edit warring?
3. My three four removals of QuackGuru's {{FV}} tags were in good faith and justified: [121] [122] [123]; plus [124], explained at talk[125][126]
4. Death in the lede: 5 known deaths from acupuncture in a decade, worldwide, is undue weight, IMO. We have a LOT of things that are, infrequently, involved in killing some unfortunate soul, but we don't mention death in the lede sections of those pertinent articles.
5. CAM wars, pseudoscience, all very contentious; more light and less heat is needed. "Civil POV-pushing" from the fringe side is a big problem but there's this as well, of which I believe QuackGuru's behavior is emblematic.
6. QuackGuru's last paragraph above is remarkable ABF. I made an edit[127], discussed it; a small edit war ensued in which I did not take part; I saw a critical comment (from Doc James)[128], realized my mistake, undid it[129] and left a note on talk[130]. That's how it's done, right? How else does one "take full responsibility for [their] poor edit"? QuackGuru is apparently miffed that I found Doc James's criticism persuasive but not his. Yeah, gotta take that to ANI.
7. De-escalation: I've made a lot of good-faith efforts to get along with QuackGuru, and I'm sure he doesn't like me because I've joined other editors in criticizing his conduct, which he probably perceives as WP:POKING. But when QuackGuru himself engages in poking -- e.g., sockpuppetry accusation[131][132]; and weird, oblique allusions[133][134] to my ES -- it's not very encouraging. IMO, this ANI post also has elements of poking.

Happy editing. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir and Bob's Burgers

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

---

User:EvergreenFir has over a period of several days made a series of disruptive edits to both the article and talk pages for Bob's Burgers. These have had to do with the location of the show.

One of his first claims was the use of this screencap which he claims establishes the location as New Jersey. I challenged this as a WP:COPYVIO, because this content does not belong to him and is property of 20th Century Fox Television. Secondly, if it was to be considered, the fact that the line in the picture starts in New Jersey is coincidental because the car in the picture was placed in the middle of the map to start.

Second, he cited the episode it takes place in, "It Snakes a Village", as proof. There is no direct mention from any of the characters in the episode where the show takes place.

Hence, I found an interview with series creator Loren Bouchard where he says the show doesn't have a particular setting but is instead set in the Northeastern United States and added it to the page replacing the misleading source. [135] EvergreenFir reverted claiming it was "clearly NJ" and then linked to a review of the episode where the writer of the article opined that New Jersey was the setting. I reverted, again citing my source. He re-reverted [136] and added a second opinion-based analysis. I had no choice but to revert again, telling him that unless he could find an RS (which, because of the opinions of the writers, these weren't as the creator of the show said that it wasn't any specific place) the info was inaccurate and misleading. He responded by reporting me as a vandal to AIV (where they said my edits weren't vandalism) and to 3RR as an edit warrior (I don't see how reverting edits that add false information to pages is edit warring). On the talk page he linked to three additional opinions on the show's setting, which I again told him was not enough proof to override the word of the show's creator.

His major claim is that because the interview is from 2012 and everything he's cited is from 2013 and beyond, the info is more current and because of that, it overrides the factual data. A compromise was offered, but I refused to accept it because it still mentioned the New Jersey-as-setting theory as fact. Instead I offered to allow the theories but present them as they were, interspersing them with the factual data and adding that Bouchard chose to leave it to the viewer's imagination as to where in the Northeast the show took place. [137] EvergreenFir chose to ignore this, insisting on adding the misleading data again and that if I didn't agree to have it on the page he would act unilaterally and declare consensus for the inaccuracy. [138]

I'll admit my next moves might've exacerbated the situation (I cited WP:COMPETENCE and WP:RANDY when referring to his stubborn nature), but I've tried to reason with him and it simply has gone on deaf ears. Something needs to be done. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5 has been engaging in a battle on Bob's Burgers and the associated talk page for a few days now. See Talk:Bob's Burgers for lengthy conversation. Initially I thought the user was a vandal as they kept removing/reverting info without explanation and then without discussion. One AN3 ([139] closed by EdJohnston) and mistaken AIV later, the page is protected. ChrisP2K5 is convinced they are correct and is unwilling to compromise (calling it acquiescing [140]). Note other users, even one who called me a liar on AN3, does not agree with ChrisP2K5's position. Despite multiple recent reliable sources and an aired episode placing the location of the show in New Jersey, ChrisP2K5 keeps going back to an old interview with the show's creator evoking a reverse "word of god" argument. They have claimed the newer sources are not RS (despite editorial oversight) and somehow citing an episode and/or having a link to a screencap on the talk page is COPYVIO. I've offered compromise ([141]), getting called a WP:RANDY for it ([142]), and have tried repeated to engage the user in discussion from the beginning (1). They are unwilling to follow normal dispute resolution procedures, even asking for the page to be unprotected because they are simply right ([143] closed by Ymblanter). And now this. This user has a long history of poor behavior and I don't know what else to do. I'm at wit's end. PS - don't assume gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute. In my experience, EvergreenFir is a reasonable and mature editor. I suggest dispute resolution, which will probably just tell you guys to to say, "Some sources pin the setting as New Jersey, but the creator intentionally leaves it vague." Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would care so much about this. I've got an block-evading IP editor who reverts me on 15 articles every day like clockwork at 4am. Now, that's disruptive. This can be solved with a RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. The definitive word says it takes place in an indeterminate location. These aren't "sources", they're opinions. The creator's word is what should count, and he says it isn't New Jersey. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to dispute resolution, can somebody do something with this? I can't open a case there while this is open. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Allegations of admin Bgwhite

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

---

Admin User:Bgwhite accused me of lie and POV editing and restored totally unsourced text in Lesbian Association of India.[144] Article LGBT topics and Hinduism is tagged for multiple issues, neutrality and expert attention. I am not 'expert', but being an Indian I know about hinduism. I started cleaning. I removed unsourced text against unverifieble dead links. Users/anons have interpreted 'unnatural', 'pollute' words from translation of ancient text Manu Smriti as homosexual behaviour and have inserted in the article. I removed it as per WP:OR. This monk Amara Das Wilhelm's book 'tritiya prakriti' is extensively used in article. I didn't find any info that he is reputed academician. Text of unknown authors can not be used to analyse ancient religion like Hinduism. So I removed text against his book. Two other authors have also inserted their books as refs(which I noticed, but didn't touch it).[145][146] Admin Bgwhite accused me of POV editing, reverted my all edits and restored even unsourced text and clear original research.[147] I touched LGBT articles only 2 days ago and have edited only 3 articles. Admin Bgwhite is supposed to explain why he is accusing me of lie and POV and why he has inserted unsourced text in both articles. Abhi (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Abhi you blanked the article in question. This is totally incorrect use of the prod tag. You previously have blanked large portions of text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Right away this argument can be discounted. Someone who says they "know Hinduism" can never call it a "religion". Hinduism is not a religion, it's a "way of life", and anyone who "knows" Hinduism knows that. However, the non-NPOV editing is astronomically apparent. The clensing of the article is a transparent attempt to whitewash academic discussions of certain sexuality in Hinduism the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear... it seems that the article Hinduism needs an urgent and radical rewrite. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because the article maintains the "world view" that Hinduism is a religion. That's the goal of Wikipedia. Those not of a Hindu background call it a religion. It includes elements of faith, it includes elements of lifestyle, but to a Hindu, it's not a religion unless that's what the question on Census form asks the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure there are cultural, lifestyle, ethnic, political etc elements to living as a Hindu, and all of those aspects need to be understood to properly understand Hinduism. But categorically denying it is a religion is just plain stupid - and telling us what Hindus are supposed to believe about their religion and culture is arrogant. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: See article in Hindi Wikipedia - Google translate of opening of the lede says "Hinduism (Sanskrit: eternal religion) in all religions of the world's oldest religion. It is a religion based on the Vedas, which serve in many different systems, not, creed, and boasts philosophy" (and the next bit is lost in the translation). — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to PROD article. But after removing unsourced text, article would have been blank. I was confused how to leave blank article behind. So I PRODed Lesbian Association of India. In other article, 'further readings' books were added by anon IP[148] 'Further readings' section is like external links which spammers often use for promotion. The list includes 2 authors who have edited article and I suspect third author Amara Das has also edited article using anon IP. So I thought it promotion of books by anon IP and hence removed that list. Abhi (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see none of the three references actually works. The CIA World Fact Book: India link is only to the main page and not to a page that says anything about lesbianism, the ref to the LIA home page gives a 404 - and the home page link in in the External links section gives something in Japanese, and the Cambridge News article link is a dead one and just gives the home page. Also, we cannot talk of "the intolerance, ignorance and conservative religious attitudes that remain pervasive in Indian society" in Wikipedia's voice, so I have removed that. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:IZAK NPA, CIVIL, AGF, BATTLE

IZAK has repeatedly leveled personal attacks at me starting in an AfD discussion and continuing into a DRV discussion, becoming increasing vociferous, most recently accusing me of hissing and rampaging, and demanding that I demonstrate my "bona fides" by editing another article first.

Hi Ubikwit: Thank you for your attempt at a constructive response. However, the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become.
As for your critique of my post, you owe me an apology[149]

Cautioned about his rudeness by another editor here and here.

“you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal”
“Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal...once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain” [150]

For the record, I never claimed to be an expert on the history of Nepal, either.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

inadvertent omissions

“Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" [151]
“your rampaging against this article” [152]
.“Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" [153]
“your rampaging against this article’’” [154]

• As will be evident from the below, separately implemented response section, IZAK has not responded to the personal attacks listed above, and has chosen to engage in a tactic of making recourse to previous matters that have already been discussed above on this page and on the page of the admin he mentions. The admin closed that discussion before I had a chance to even reply to his last remark to me. Hardly anything of note there.

I don't know if the response given below indicates that the personal attacks made today were a strategy to incite my post here or note, but IZAK has simply attacked the messenger without responding to the evidence. That is indicative of a battle mentality.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Ravpapa mentioned in the related thread above[155] that among editors on the keep side of the AfD, a number were frequent editors of the Chabad article, so I just checked and found these results for IZAK [156]. Perhaps he has an emotional attachment to this topic that impedes his capacity to engage in civil, rational discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Response by IZAK

This must surely be one of the most egregious cases of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one. Ubikwit can be very trying on anyone's nerves as can be seen from the many complaints only in this series of AfD, ANI, DRV and now again ANI. I have never met User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) before until coming across his disruptive behavior at the History of the Jews in Nepal article and its related AfD and DRV, the guy just does not stop in his irrational war to blot out this article, and the more pressure he applies the more the article has been improving which just drives him nuts, can't imagine why? Seeing that he cannot get his way with destroying the article and harassing good faith editors, see the above ANI complaint #Unfair conduct in a deletion battle against Ubikwit "There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)" and unwilling to see that the article has survived a previous AfD [157] and is being improved even as he has brought it to a frivolous DRV [158] and denigrating the decision of the closing admin, see User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14#Your close of AFD discussion on History of the Jews in Nepal. Ubikwit obviously does not see his own problems but he has been progressively engaging in and violating WP:WAR and WP:DONOTDISRUPT [159] [160] [161]. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [162] and that he "has been disruptive overall" [163] that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. Ubikwit is simply continuing his WP:WAR [164] over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin, me or anyone else in his way, or the need for this good article. Ubikwit would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Judging by how often Ubikwit seems to show up at ANI, maybe it's about time to implement some sort of ban to keep them from posting here and taking up everyone's time. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Three of their most recent postings being Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Repeated attempts to disrupt RfC, Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Unfair conduct in a deletion battle, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Re: bobrayner, Sairp. Anyone who wants to waste their time further searching the archives is welcome to: for the moment I'll just say this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: You are free to comment on my conduct here, as is anyone, but you are not commenting on my conduct. You again appear to be engaged in some sort of meta discourse against me. That demonstrates a failure to WP:AGF, especially since the only interaction I've had with you on this website is in this forum.

You are not required to comment on this thread if you feel it is a waste of your time. Making inflammatory remarks is not conducive to resolving disputes. Since you have only been on WP for less than a year, I wonder if you are familiar with this essay?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:G S Palmer, please drop the suggestion that three appearances at ANI deserves a ban. While some editors have been urged to stay away (although no names come to mind) I think it took double-digit filings to get to that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone uninvolved please sort out person with 3 accounts?

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Background info on me and the "Siduri Project" a well-meaning editor who is struggling with their understanding of how Wikipedia works. Thanks. The accounts are User:Wiki-proofer-and-tagger, User:Siduri-Project, and User:Gilgamesh-for-the-World. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that editor is not so much that he has three accounts, nor that he's apparently been using some of them as shared role accounts, but that he is trying to use the editing of our Gilgamesh-related pages in order to advertise some bizarre personal program promoting an obscure passage of text in one Gilgamesh texts as if it was a religious piece of life advice for the modern world, trying to give greatly undue weight to that passage and maximizing the visibility of his external website in the process, all the while covering his campaign up with grandiloquent walls of text about what grand schemes of reinventing Wikipedia he has. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect, I am indeed passionate about Siduri and Siduri's advice, bizarre as that may be, hence the primary goal of the Siduri project to improve Wikipedia's "Siduri" page with new multimedia (images, audio, video etc). The reason I am excited about the "Siduri Project" from a more general Wikipedia perspective, is that we may be able to use the same model and step-by-step user-friendly processes to improve other Wikipedia pages. Please judge me based on my past, current and future actions. I am here to: 1) improve the Siduri page (which I am passionate about) and 2) hopefully export these processes to other Wikipedia pages to improve Wikipedia. Every edit from every account (no they are not Role accounts) speaks that intent. I do appreciate your perspective on me and this project and will do everything in my power to alleviate your concerns. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the beta-testing account "Gilgamesh-for-the-World", I propose it is in Wikipedia's best interest to have this multimedia beta-tested on a non-public page before being integrated into the actual Siduri page. This way, if I, or any of our contributors, makes a mistake, it will not interfer with Wikipedia's publicly accessibly Siduri page. Perhaps "Gilgamesh-for-the-World" is not the best name for such a page, if this is in any way a concern, would "Siduri-Beta-Testing" be a more acceptable account name? Siduri-Project (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't need nor should you have multiple accounts for the reasons you're stating. You simply use a personal WP:SANDBOX for testing in non-article space like everyone else who read the policies and guidelines does the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Could multiple people see and modify this sandbox page, or would it only be limited to one account? The concept of the beta-testing page was to get feedback from Siduri Project contributors regarding bugs, improvements, copyright etc, before posting to the public page. Does this make sense, or should I elaborate?Siduri-Project (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no 'Siduri project'. Contributors wishing to edit the article in question will have to do so as individuals, as with any other article. And sandboxes etc are emphatically not appropriate places to sort out copyright issues - if material is copyright, it must not be uploaded at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy:

1. Yes, you are of course right, I would never upload any copyrighted material that might hurt Wikipedia. My colleagues and I will make sure all copyright regulations are followed.

2. Yes, you are correct that no "Siduri Project" has yet been approved, we still need to propose this project (once the regulatory issues are resolved) at Wikipedia's village pump.

3. No, I don't think that beta-testing increasingly sophisticated multimedia and applications live on the publicly accessible Siduri page is in the best interests of either Wikipedia or the Wikipedia visitor. Personal sandboxes may be ok for text and images, but audio, video and other applications should we checked by multiple people before being integrated into the public page. This may not be Wikipedia policy, but it should be, in my opinion. Best, Jim Siduri-Project (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is precisely zero possibility of any 'Siduri project' being approved by Wikipedia. We have no need whatsoever for projects based around a single article, and neither do we need projects clearly intended to promote the subject of the article in ways entirely incompatible with the objectives of the encyclopaedia. If you want to start a new religion, do so elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm more and more concerned that the editor doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia ... sounds like WP:NOTWEBHOST. Siduri: your current userid fails WP:U and can be blocked at any moment. Any other accounts that appear to be role accounts can also be blocked. No pages that you create on Wikipedia are "private" in any way - that's why we use WP:AFC and sandboxes to create new articles. Be careful about editing in concert with each other - we do have rules against that that can lead to blocks the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if "Siduri-Project" was not an acceptable username. Would "Jim-Siduri" work?Jim-Siduri (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, etc.etc. Don't know where to start. Well, perhaps if I was an admin by blocking two of the three accounts. --cyclopia^speak! 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fox & Friends IP Protect amid minor vandalism and BLP violation.

Apparently they told viewers to edit their page, and some are It would be a good idea to put an IP restriction on changing the page for a few days. Furthermore, the edits are using a derogatory attack of Steve Doocy's name in their addition. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: You should mention that on the page, if they really asked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Random IP editors don't go to the talk pages. It is more simple to just IP protect the page for a few days until they forget about it. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of record {{press}} should be added to the talk page. EEng (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected by Dougweller for the period of two months due to (Persistent vandalism), Incidentally EEng's idea above is also good one. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)