Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845

German legal threat?

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

---

User talk:Catflap08#Holocaustverleugnung? apparently contains a German legal threat to Catflap08.John Carter (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If any, his accusations of holocaust denial were a legal threat. And of magnitude in that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently has to do with a comment over at AN3 in this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). As far as a WP:DOLT check goes of this legal threat, I don't think there's anything we need to do to address what triggered the threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Horst-schlaemma indefinitely, with the offer that they could be unblocked if they unambiguously retract the legal threat. -- Atama頭 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest it would be useful to involve a German speaking admin as the threat was posted in German (even though this being the English speaking Wikipedia). Quote: “sondern bereits als an der Grenze zum Rufmord schwelend. Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein“. So called „legal steps“ in connection to my IP-Address I would consider a legal threat. Please also note the allegation of “Rufmord” (calumny). I myself have not posted the complaint, but have previously contacted Wikipedia via mail. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma sent me an email, stating that "No legal action is in progress or will be forthcoming from my side." I tried to reply, saying that they should post the same message on their user talk page, but my message was bounced back because their mailbox is full. :/

I think I'm going to go ahead and unblock. This isn't a bureaucracy and I can vouch for their retracting the threat. -- Atama頭 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh that’s how one deals with legal threats then? Interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be a bit more blunt. Are we sure that is enough, or would some other measures be reasonably considered? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

First, yes, it's a clear legal threat. Secondly, my understanding of WP:NLT is that a legal threat leads to an indefinite block that is lifted if and when the threat is clearly withdrawn (unless there are other factors, of course). And thirdly, I think this threat needs to be withdrawn on-wiki, not just in an email. We are not a bureaucracy, but even the impression that a legal threat is left standing leads to a chilling effect. So the unblocking was, in my view, a bit premature. I won't reblock, but we should make it clear to the user that he should clearly withdraw the statement in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Catflap, how we deal with them is based on two things, weight depending on who is being threatened, Wikipedia or an individual editor: 1. it is fine to take legal action, but you can't edit while you are taking legal action, via the terms of service. 2. threatening to take legal action has a chilling effect on discussion, it is a blunt instrument used to censor others, thus is more than a little uncivil even if it is an empty threat. This is why a retraction is required, and per Stephan, I think it really needs to be onwiki. From what I see here, he is getting off pretty easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that the top priority now would be an unambiguous withdrawl of the threat. Has he been asked if he would make one? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll make another request on the user talk page. Unfortunately, as I said this editor apparently isn't getting email (unless they deleted some messages) so sending an email won't help, nor will they be getting email notifications about messages on their user talk page. Not that any of that is a reason why they wouldn't make an on-wiki retraction, but it might explain why they'll be slower to respond. -- Atama頭 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If they're not editing, then they don't really need to be unblocked. I'd suggest re-instating the block until the legal threat is unambiguously retracted publicly, so that any chilling effect is undone. BMK (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That is kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and would just add another set of block/unblock entries in their log. I trust Atama to monitor and reblock if they refuse to make an onwiki statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well I am not too sure about the toothpaste issue … one might as well just dump all guidelines. What really bugs me is the fact that the threat was even posted in German. I leave it up to admins to simply take a look at the user’s entries full stop. I was threatened publicly so any retracts should be done the same way. Not my intention to see anyone being blocked indefinitely. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm bothered that Horst-schlaemma has not yet responded. It's true that email may not be working, but they were pretty quick to send an email out to me after the initial block, so they should be monitoring their user page. I've reinstituted the block, out of fairness to Catflap08 and to ease the concerns of multiple people in this thread. I'm watching their user talk page to respond if they comment there. I'd expected that an unblock would be uncontroversial if I vouched for the retraction personally but clearly I was mistaken. -- Atama頭 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I won't speak for anyone else, but my concern had nothing to do with my respect for you or for your word -- I absolutely believe that you reported accurately what the editor said to you, and that your unblock was made in good conscience. It's simply that threats made in the light of day should be retracted in the same fashion, publicly and not through intermediaries. The latter gives the impression that perhaps the retraction is tactical, made to restore editing privileges, and not meant in good faith. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I probably would not have been as generous as Atama in unblocking before the public withdrawal but perhaps he is just much nicer than I am. Once done, I think waiting to reblock was prudent. And I agree, we've waited long enough, so support his decision in reblocking after giving him a good faith chance to recant onwiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(An aside: apologies to Dennis for the erroneous revert. I am working from a very slow connection, and the screen image has an annoying way of jumping to a new position just as I click on something. I should probably disable rollback when working on such an unreliable terminal.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I didn't think you doubted my word. :) I just didn't expect people to be so strict about it. I'll remember that in the future. I've always been of the opinion that a legal threat should be matched with a retraction as clear and unambiguous as the threat was, and I tend to be a stickler about that, but I don't know that I've ever seen a situation where the retraction was by proxy. I thought that it would be okay but now I know better. -- Atama頭 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this comes across as publicly issuing a threat and then whispering to a single person: "Don't worry, I didn't really mean it." It doesn't come off as an actual retraction that way.--Atlan (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Horst-schlaemma has commented on his user talk page but it doesn't look like a retraction John Carter (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So I think I understand Horst's complaint a bit better now. Evidently he takes issue with being called a Holocaust denier (I'm not certain it was explicitly stated but it came close), and seems to argue that calling him one is the equivalent of accusing him of a crime under German law. Doesn't make the legal threat okay, but perhaps there should be some discussion on whether the comment (which I think was here) was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments seem to be here and here. All I see is Catflap expressing an opinion of admin action as possible holocaust denial. Horst isn't an admin. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is unblocked and I should apologise (as he stated on his talk page)? Are you serious??? I am sorry but this not a retract. Yes, I did in a discussion question his intentions as being revisionist – which is a matter of opinion. I then was challenged (in German language on the ENGLISH wikipedia by the way) that he would track my IP address in order to file charges on the grounds of calumny (which by the way is in some ways daft as I have no idea who that person is). So to get things right it was me who was legally threatened and the user now asks me to apologise? Well done Wikipedia, well done. I did by the way contact prior to all this Wikipedia via e-mail and the answer was clear as crystal. So either we have guideline or we just dump them. It was ME to whom a legal threat was posted. I never ever said I would file legal charges against the user in question to be in denial of the Holocaust. I have no idea if the denial of the Holocaust is even an issue within the State of Virginia. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: you are free to propose any other sanctions you feel appropriate now John Carter (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Horst retracted the legal threat. Strictly speaking, that's all that's necessary for him to be unblocked in this case. As a bit of advice, I would suggest you take care when using the term "Holocaust denial" with respect to another editor's actions, as even if such a comment might not constitute defamation (as Horst seems to suggest: calumny is an old-fashioned term for a particularly severe defamation), it's probably a personal attack (so long as it's without good evidence). You aren't being ordered to apologize to Horst or anything, though he seems to think you should. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree it was me against whom a legal threat was posted. The user in question did not retract but asked me to apologise, apologise for what? I never ever said I would take legal actions based on a denial of the Holocaust which, truth must be said, would be a legal matter in the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he did retract it. You also don't seem to understand what I mean: I'm not saying your statement could be construed as threatening legal action, but that it could be construed as claiming Horst had committed a crime. That is why Horst complained that you defamed him. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking legal action and having opposing views are in my books a separate matter. I have so far not seen any retraction. I was threatened by some obscure IP- actions as a an individual and so far I see no need to apologise. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

He did retract his threat when he wrote "Anyway, I'm not taking any legal action." Don't confuse a retraction with an apology - he's not required to apologize. BMK (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone makes statements that unquestionably deny that the Holocaust took place, then referring to them as a "Holocaust denier" is simple description, nothing more. That being a Holocaust denier may have legal consequences in one nation or another is not a concern of ours, and should not be construed as a legal threat under WP:NLT, unless a statement such as "I'm going to bring your statements to the attention of the German authorities" is made - 'that's a legal threat (but only to those living under German law). We cannot allow reprehensible statements to be bandied about freely here due to a concern about being accused of making a legal threat, that would be a kind of reverse legal threat which would itself have a chilling effect on the community. BMK (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there should be nothing wrong with making a simple description. I'm just explaining what Horst's problem was and what led to the legal threat: he seemed to believe he was defamed. When he later claimed that Catflap08 made a legal threat is pure unadulterated bunkum. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, we do have language in WP:NLT to be careful about labeling someone's comments as "libelous" or "defamatory", as those can imply a legal threat. But having said that, I think Horst-schlaemma is vastly overreacting. This is the English Wikipedia, and the average editor is not going to be aware of German law. Most editors here would not assume that calling someone a Holocaust denier is a legal threat or even an implication. My suggestion is that if Horst-schlaemma wants to contribute here, they need to adjust to the culture here, and not expect the community to adjust to theirs. Also, I discourage communicating with other editors in German or other non-English languages even if the person you're communicating with claims to have an understanding of the language at the "native" level (as Catflap08's infobox states) unless there is a prior agreement to use such a language, or if you think that the person's English communication skills are poor, or if there is some other good reason to use that language (you're discussing a concept best described in another language). English should be the default language used here. I'd expect that on the German Wikipedia that German would be the default. It's common sense. -- Atama頭 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this has to be seen in the light of an understandable perception that some comments at Talk:Germany were intended to associate editors who object to certain graphic images of holocaust victims with holocaust denial or revisionist attitudes or (mis-) represent them as attempts to portray Germany as a victim or whitewash German history. Regardless of any legal threats: where this is happening, it needs to stop. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it's messed up to suggest that anyone who objects to displaying images of Holocaust victims is a Holocaust denier. I'm not 100% sure that's what happened here, but in principle, I agree that if that were happening it's not right. Relevant to this discussion, I see where Catflap08 stated that "the Admins moves are recently supportive of Holocaust denial", and suggestions on the Germany talk page that resistance to Holocaust victim images (or giving preference to images of rubble in Germany from war damage) is giving in to "revisionist views". But I don't see direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma. Catflap08 did ask for Horst-schlaemma to be "blocked" (I think the intention was "banned") from "editing the article on Germany", but that was after accusing admins of supporting Holocaust denial, not Horst-schlaemma. And again, even if there was such an accusation, it might fall under personal attack territory (or possibly just considered uncivil) but isn't a legal threat. It's a different issue, and a difference between a "bright line" rule on legal threats and a discretionary one on personal attacks/incivility. -- Atama頭 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that there is no valid basis for accusing Catflap08 of making legal threats. I think the more relevant policies/guidelines are WP:CIVIL, probably WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. As regards not seeing "direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma", most of the comments seem to be directed generally at all the editors who objected to the images preferred by Catflap08 (apparently including me); I don't think that necessarily makes it any less personal, but there is also an edit that directly mentions Horst-schlaemma, though it uses an alternative spelling and gets the name of the German comedian wrong. The comment contains the following text:

I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda.

That looks to me like a fairly direct statement that Horst-schlaemma is editing Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. You perhaps need to know that Horst Schlämmer is a fictitious character played by Hape Kerkeling, an openly gay German comedian. I would be interested in an AGF-conforming explanation of the allusion to the actor who plays the eponymous Schlämmer being gay in connection with his namesake's alleged revisionist agenda. As an aside: references to the State of Virginia (?) might be a little shortsighted for German nationals and residents, which might also explain why Horst-schlaemma could be keen to robustly refute any allegations of holocaust denial, particularly in view of recent news about the German intelligence services improving their ability to monitor "social media".--Boson (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it wasn’t even me who contacted admins on this issue or filed a complaint officially i.e. started this discussion here, be honest I could not care less anymore and simply will stop editing in Wikipedia for the time being. Endless discussions and debates and a bureaucracy that makes me sometimes think to be on planet Vogsphere, correct content seems secondary these days. Enough time wasted. Bye Bye. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm allowed to post here, let me put some things straight. 1) As a matter of fact, I didn't suggest a legal issue would be filed, I just stated that one would come along as long as Catflap08 keeps accusing me of committing a crime under German law - that's what Holocaust denial is over here. So indeed, I felt legally threatened. I don't know if that's overreacting, but I made an experience of users being rather erratic and sometimes dogmatic over here. 2) Catflap08 claimed to be of German origin (and speak German) in the actual photo discussion of the Germany talk page. So ofc I assumed I could adress him in German and that he'd be aware of the law. Admittedly, adressing someone in another language at the English Wiki isn't recommended and I'm not doing that again. 3) Again: I'm not undertaking any legal actions and never have. 4) IP monitoring is everywhere, as Boson stated. It's not like you can stroll along, spread critical paddywhack anonymously and expect no one ever takes note. 5) On the initial discussion itself: I stated several times that I think showcasing holocaust corpses at Germany's FA-class country article is plain disrespectful. We're not doing that with other countries' articles either. As we had an ongoing discussion/rfc about it, I reverted any attempt to include it (later the page got protected), as some users tried to establish the image without consensus, no matter what. That's where the "holocaust denial" was coming from, which is utterly ridiculous of course. I won't unfurl my background but it'd already tell you how imbecile that claim is. 6) I wish you all some awesome Thursday and don't you worry at all. Life's great. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You said: "Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein." "When I read such a thing one more time, I will start legal proceedings towards your IP". A clear, unambiguous legal threat which you are now downplaying, even denying.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It gets a little tangled, though, because Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany (Laws against Holocaust denial#Germany). Accusing a German citizen of Holocaust denial isn't just saying something potentially defamatory; it's an accusation that they are committing a rather serious criminal act. I am surprised that someone like Catflap08 – who self-identifies as being of German extraction and as having German as his mother tongue – would be unaware of this.

For Horst-schlaemma, Catflap08's repeated insistence that H-S's edits or arguments constituted Holocaust denial or 'revisionism' represent accusations that H-S had committed a crime. Such accusations should not be made lightly. Catflap08's trying to win a content dispute by intimating that H-S is committing illegal acts through his editing is at least as chilling as H-S's post on Catflap08's talk page. While H-S's response was far from ideal, it is at least understandable. Catflap08's conduct should not get a free pass. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear that Catflap intended to make such an accusation? Maybe I missed something but I don't see that. At the same time, if the point is that maybe HS was reacting to such a potentiality, then that should be taken into consideration. I would think that both could be warned to avoid such back-and-forth type exchanges in the future and simply bring up conduct issues in the proper venue early on, before they escalate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, saying "X version = promoting Holocaust denial" where the difference between X and Y versions are Horst's edits is tantamount to saying Horst is engaged in promoting Holocaust denial. I'm not saying that justifies the legal threat, but Catflap should stand advised that it's probably not a very good idea to indirectly accuse editors of criminal acts in their home countries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly clear that Catflap intended to accuse other editors of Holocaust denial: [1], [2]. As far as I am aware, he hasn't explicitly stated that he is aware of the legal implications of such accusations in Germany—but I would find it remarkable if a German-speaking person of German origin who is editing on this topic were ignorant of these laws. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's not run into something here. Catflap repeatedly accused others of various things and obviously struggled with editors more than once. Now he told us he'll step back. As long as he's not coming back with another load of knee-jerk accusations and fw, I'm not really bothered at all. For me, the case is rested. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a tip: ANI threads don't work like cases at law, so the fact that you're personally done doesn't have any bearing as to whether the rest of us are done reviewing this case. You should also be careful using legalese around here: it can be mistaken as Wikilawyering or mislead people into thinking you're considering litigation (this can happen if you use terms like "defamation" or "libel" and similar). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thanks, I'm aware of that. Just saying that I'm not putting any more energy into this, as I feel it'd be a waste of time. Have a good day everyone, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 108.52.231.51

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

---

I've been threaten with legal threats at User talk:Bgwhite#Irish Mob & K&A Gang "edits" by you by 108.52.231.51, aka J.C. Berkery. This concerns edits at Irish Mob and K&A Gang where J.C. Berkery has been inserting his self-published books, with Amazon links, into the external links section of the articles. As I'm involved, I'll recuse myself and let others take action. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Involved or not, you can always block for certain obvious violations, such as vandalism, legal threats, etc. I've blocked. There is no ambiguity here in the threat. It was obvious that the goal was to chill discussion and use the threat of legal action to change the behavior of other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was on my way to block but it looks like another admin got to it before me. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum? Chillum? I thought we lost you years ago. Welcome back. We'll light them up in your honor tonight. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was distracted, but I am back. Good to hear from you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that at least some previous edits (not by Bgwhite) in at least one of those articles have fallen far short of the requirements of WP:BLP. I think to the extent that I initially tried to fix them but eventually gave up and unwatchlisted the article. Self-published books aren't a WP:DOLT issue of course, but some other shenanighins (is that an Irish term?) going on there may or may not have contributed to inflaming various people. Handle with care. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Indeffed by Sir Dennis Brown and edits reverted. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 06:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Jpoindex

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

---

Jpoindex (Jpoindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is a promotion only editor who is faking verification. See COIN for info on promotional writing around Pulse Recording.

some examples of faking verification:

"Past performers at HARD Events festivals include Deadmau5, Skrillex, Underworld, Diplo, M.I.A., Justice, A-Trak, Steve Aoki, Busy P, Boys Noize, N.E.R.D., Crystal Castles, Digitalism, and many more." Sourced by Baron, Zach (2010-09-13). "HARD Fest on M.I.A.'s Free New York Show: "We Don't Really Want to Be Involved"". Voice Media Group. Retrieved 2013-02-18. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). Source only mentions M.I.A.

Drew Pearson (songwriter) - ""Home" is the highest selling debut of an "American Idol" coronation song, and held the #1 position on 6 different Billboard charts as well as iTunes." Sourced by "Phillip Phillips: The Billboard Cover Story". Billboard. 2013-01-07. Retrieved 2013-04-01. Source does not verify that. Source says "It has hit No. 1 on a host of Billboard charts like Hot Digital Songs, Rock Digital Songs, Adult Top 40 and Triple A and reached the top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100 (No. 7), Mainstream Top 40 (No. 8) and Adult Contemporary (No. 6)" Four not six charts and no mention of itunes.

Drew Pearson (songwriter) - "He soon moved to Los Angeles, CA where he gained the bulk of his recording studio experience with record producer Greg Wells." Sourced by "Drew Pearson Discography at Discogs". Discogs.com. Retrieved 2013-04-01. Source makes no mention of moving or of Wells.

Jaden Michaels - "By age 20, Michaels had signed a publishing deal with Pulse Recording." Sourced by "Jess to bring it home". Northern Territory News. 2013-07-12. Retrieved 2013-08-25. The only thing source (an article about Jessica Mauboy) says about Michaels is "The 23-year-old singer and actor wrote her new upbeat pop single in Los Angeles with emerging songwriter Jaden Michaels.

``By the time I sat down with Jaden, I was two weeks into the writing session and wanted to write something about home. I was missing home a lot, she said. ``To The End Of The Earth made sense because everything I do connects to back home, to my place in the world." No metion of any deal with Pulse.

Pulse Recording had many examples where sources do not verify claims (mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse Recording). During the AFD other examples were added.

Creative Nation had many examples where sources do not verify claims (mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Nation).

This sort of deception is typical of Jpoindex who just writes a puff piece then seemingly randomly throws in references related to the subject but do not actually verify most of the claims. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cross-posting at two noticeboards is generally not considered necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

I have become involved in an dispute with a editor Dolatjan (talk · contribs) who persists in adding dubious, improperly sourced, irrelevant, badly-worded and non-NPV content, for example, here, here, here. The editor also insists on ascribing action or words said to me which never happened, complaining even when edits were made to correct the editor's poor English. The editor would add unsourced content that the editor cannot substantiate when challenged, or add content with spurious source, for example as discussed here - Talk:Uyghur_people#Neutrality. Content that sounded plausible were added but when checked with the source, they cannot be found in there. The editor appears to add sources that sound likely to support the assertions made but actually don't, and insist on adding content even when shown that the source doesn't say what it is purported to say. It takes a lot of time to check the sources especially when the editor would not give page number of the books (the only time when the editor gave the page numbers it was demonstrated clearly not to say what the editor claimed it says), so it's either spending an enormous amount to time checking the source (which I don't have) or allow dubious content to stay on the page. Hzh (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I have been adding articles by adding source, On my first and second edits i did not have enough time to add Sources for the subjects im adding on the page Uyghur People, then i tried to communicate with the user Hzh (talk · contribs) about how shall we improve and how can we make the page a more Neutral page, i recommended that i would give source for every subject that i will add and i did that on sub articles like Education, Medicine and Art but when it comes to my newly added sub China Uyghur issue and Uyghur population problem i couldn't give any cites for them because of the lack of time i had, then when i saw user Hzh started to call it "Unneutral source" and "Unreliable source" i thougt if we talk about this subject on Talk page was a good idea, then i wrote about the "neutrality" problem on Talk page, user Hzh Started to deter me from editing, He replied to the talk page by calling me "Tidy up your english", It is true that i'm not a perfect english speaker, Hes started to call my sources unstable and that im lying, I showed him the page of the book where the refrences is about but he denied by saying "It is not relevant", I stopped to edit the page because it will be much better if we the editors will be nicely talking and come up with a solution about it, but user Hzh started to deter me, call me liar and untrustable, he eventually said he would not discuss no more, and now he is reporting me to block me from editing, it is Hzh who stopped discussion and starting to deter me and "insult" me, i wrote that i will provide the source of every problem that i will write and i asked to make the page more Neutral, but he ignores what i say and starts to change the main subject of the Talk section and falsely accusing me for giving untrustable source. I tried to solve this by coopration and talk but user Hzh is not willing to do it. then i started to rewrite the subject in Education even when he is deterring me by saying i will be blocked, i hope admins will see a good solution for this. Dolatjan (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just point I wrote on the sources - here. I read two books Dolatjan cited and neither of them supported those edits. I'll leave the rest to the administrators as I won't try to make any edits on the Uyghur page for now, I simply have no idea how to deal with someone who is persistent and hard to make any sense of. I feel that I have wasted a lot of time the last couple of days just trying to find out if the edits have any merits, and fear that there are more to come. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if I should make a point-by-point rebuttal of what Dolatjan says since there is such an odd disconnect between what he says and what I wrote. I have no idea if it is his understanding of English, or whether he truly means what he says (if he does, then it would suggest a lack of ability to critically assess the meaning of text), or just that he doesn't care what he says. It's one reason why I stopped interacting with him as I'm not sure if he truly understand the exchange. However if it is deemed necessary for me to answer any point, please let me know. Hzh (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all I have cited only one book on "Education", By this i'm little bit confused if user Hzh (talk · contribs) really even read the book, i can only say that i either don't have so much time to point out the exact detail of the source, it was long time ago since i checked the book, The book self is about the problems in chinese education strategy over Uyghur minority and Chinese in Xinjiang, When i wrote approximatley "chapter 2", i cannot remeber it and i don't have much time to find it, but i suppose you have not even read the book fully, and you are now meaning that im "stubborn", i wanted to discuss about it but you are the one who leaved the discussion without a good reason, if would need to write the reason you wrote why you leaved, it will be the same thing i wrote on my previous text on "disturpitive editing". I truely belive that articles needs to be neutral, i even pleased user Hzh (talk · contribs) to edit teh article to be more neurtral, but he don't want it, and it is true that i may have some bad grammer but i have eventuly asked user Hzh (talk · contribs) to contribute his english skill for the page. Dolatjan (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! I cannot even follow a word Dolatjan is saying in any of his posts because of the glaring grammar and misspellings. He writes similarly in all of his article edits and diffs that HzH has provided. For that reason alone, the material would need to be reverted. I don't think we have to get into the details of this argument. My suggestion would be to brush up on your grammar before editing Wikipedia so we can at the very least understand what you're saying. It's called "editing" Wikipedia. Dolatjan, I would trust HzH's edits and move on. AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)~

Oh, i am really sorry for my english then, i truley doubt that my english is not well, but atleast wikipedia is a free encylopedia, wikipedia is very usefull and good because of this, and wikipedia does set rules for the editors about being neutral, giving source, being polite...... but i belive my english is not that bad so that i should be stopped from editing and contributing new pages and little bit more knowledges to the encylopedia, there are many thing that i don't know that you may know and there are many things that i know but you may don't know, so we need to spread our knowledge and disuss about it. and im truley sorry for my awful english if i have disturbed you. (User talk:AmericanDad86 Dolatjan (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hzh has a valid point that the content you added is not supported by the cited book(s), but your response was "it's in the book somewhere, read the whole book to find it". That's not a good answer. It's your responsibility to provide the page number so people can easily verify the content you add. If you don't, other editors have the right to remove it. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that even when Dolatjan gave page numbers, when I checked, I can't find what he says should be there (it is the same with both of the books I've checked). I have pretty much given up discussing with him because I have no idea if he genuinely believes in or truly understands what he wrote (or indeed understands what I or the book he cited wrote), or if he is just saying things regardless of the truth. The thing is that some of what he wrote in the article sounds plausible (e.g. radical Muslim families restricting female education), but we can't really accept assertion simply because it sounds plausible. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

i have now also cited the page of the book, Please check it again, further more i have added one more book to streghten the editings i made on "Education" please have a a time to chek it also Dolatjan (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it needs to be said just to make sure - the content said to be on those pages of Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School and Under the Heel of the Dragon do not quite support the edits, only one part (that education in Uyghur is "insufficent" [sic]) can be vaguely supported but it is misphrased, the rest are non-existent. The edits from the another book (Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia) referring to extremism is irrelevant to the Education section (the relevant part oddly enough was not mentioned by Dolatjan). I have all 3 books mentioned. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be "irrelevant" just because you say so, on page 168 of book "situating the uyghurs between china and central asia" says : "most recently, china have explictly sought to link its struggle in xinjang with the global "war on terrorism"............" Please read it clearly, and do not point it directly as a irrelevant source.

More of the same problems with The Zeitgeist Movement article.

User: Earl King Jr., seems to have taken the inconclusive result of the previous ANI thread [3] as a license to continue with POV-pushing edits, personal attacks and edit warring, in line with his 'ownership' of the article. Specifically, the issue has been if and how a piece by Michelle Goldberg in the Tablet magazine should be used. Earl seems intent on cherry-picking the source to prezent TZM in as negative a way as possible. In his efforts to get his way he has claimed 'consensus' for his edits - but when asked to provide evidence for this supposed consensus, not only failed to do so, but made repeated personal attacks - see this thread: [4] While many of the personal attacks are minor, and probably best ignored, Earl has repeatedy accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", both on the talk page [5][6] and in 'warnings' on my talk page. [7][8] Since this accusation is clearly a direct attack on my credibility as a Wikipedia contributor, and since Earl has repeatedly made it, but failed to raise the matter in an appropriate place when I suggested he do so, [9] I am raising this supposed 'disruption' here myself, with a request that Earl provide the necessary evidence to back up this claim - and a request that should he fail to do so, he should be held to account for his own behaviour. I see no reason whatsoever why he should be permitted to engage in such intimidatory tactics without being obliged to back them up with evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor above is removing information from that page, whole paragraphs and citations and sections now [10]. There are very few good reliable citations in the article. Now he is removing them and the cited information and going out of his way to be as contentious and nasty about it as possible. Rather than copy edit something he is removing swathes of the article along with SomeDifferentStuff an editor that was blocked previously on this article for edit warring and tendentious editing [11] Andy and that editor are editing in tandem now on the article in a negative way in my opinion because they are removing information that is critical of the Zeitgeist movement though it is sourced. I am a neutral editor in approach. Andy uses a rhetorical approach to other editors which in my opinion is not needed. A lot of his arguments do not make sense because he assumes that another editor is anti or pro does not mean that is so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As the link Earl shows, I have explained in edit summaries that the Goldberg piece is being misrepresented: e.g. quoting her as asserting that TZM is "the world's first Internet-based cult..." whereas she actually wrote "At times, it even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, not the definitive one the article contained. And yes, I removed the section entirely, since as it stood there was clearly no agreement as to how the Goldberg piece should be used. This isn't remotely ""disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", as I'm sure should be apparent to anyone. Earl has once again failed to produce evidence for anything other than further baseless assertions - and he seems to be trying to distract from the issue by instead bringing in irrelevances about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Earl King has persistently edited articles related to the Zeitgeist Movement and Zeitgeist films to try and paint the group and its ideas as antisemitic. The basis for this are a minority of partisans, yet Earl has repeatedly tried to give their biased and baseless attacks a disproportionate share of the article and unwarranted prominence within it. Repeated attempts to eliminate the article on the film by making it a redirect without any prior discussion seem to be an escalation. Unfortunately, I think it is time Earl should be given a lengthy vacation from this whole subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't just the 'antisemitism' claims though (sourced incidentally to an article which doesn't actually state that TZM as a whole is antisemitic, and which described some members as "genuinely baffled" when accused of antisemitism) - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for the most negative content. It should also be noted that as I documented in the earlier ANI thread [12] he had earlier used the talk page as a soapbox for a conspiracy theory about how the whole TZM thing was a money-making scheme by its founder, and had accused TZM and or its founder of "brainwashing", "meme control" and "neuro linguistic programming". This gives the lie to his protestations of 'neutrality'. His editing behaviour isn't remotely neutral, he is instead intent on piling negativity upon negativity into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt some of that. Before Earl King Jr. arrived, articles around TZM were a mass of promotional fluff, cherrypicked praise, and economic illiteracy framed as great solutions to humanity's problems. I haven't been watching such articles lately, but Earl King Jr's earlier edits were a net positive - and a great deal of effort went into dealing with elaborate misrepresentation of sources by TZM fans. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what he is doing now. Should prior good acts mean Earl gets free reign to defame and attack the people he detests? More than a few editors who go after promotional writing turn out to have vendettas of their own that only become clear after the promotional activity has been effectively restrained.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Some TZM supporters have been relentless in trying to spin the article their way, and at times have driven us to distraction. That doesn't however make efforts to spin the article the other way legitimate - which is what Earl has been doing. What is needed is strict adherence to WP:NPOV policy - including WP:WEIGHT considerations, which require balanced use of the available sources, rather than cherry-picking half-sentences for effect. And of course adherence to talk page guidelines is also necessary, which obviously precludes soapboxing, speculation about the supposed financial motivations behind the movement, and nonsense about 'brainwashing' etc, along with repeated assertions that I'm 'disrupting' things. Since Earl has entirely failed to provide the slightest evidence for this supposed disruption, I think we can safely assume there is none - and accordingly he needs to be held accountable - if for no other reason than that it makes it well nigh impossible to get TZM supporters to comply with policies that Earl refuses to acknowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

These articles are ridiculous....why don't we just impose 1rr per week on each of these TZM related articles and that will put an end to all the "POV pushing". There are some things worth arguing about Andy, but any defense of the crackpot nonsense that is the Zeitgeist junk is a monumental waste of brain cells.--MONGO 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of TZM, like mine, is of no relevance here - if we are to have an article on the movement (personally, I'm not entirely convinced that it merits one, though I probably tend to set my sights higher than most when it comes to notability criteria), it needs to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, in my opinion you misrepresent in grand flourish the issues. You did remove a whole section of the article recently with reinforcement from Zeitgeist supporters [13]. That is the reason I warned you on your talk page and opened a discussion about it on the article talk page. It was only quotes from the story. The idea is to get a balanced view of the subject for the article. You kept claiming copyvio or this and that about removing information which you could have copy edited easily. Also, bringing an old, very old debate from the talk page and reframing that in as disturbing and provocative way as possible is not the way forward. SomedifferentStuff used partial 'happy talk' phrasing from information in that Goldberg article also to make fluff points. I added the complete thoughts in the article and that was removed by you two. Now the Devils Advocate, another pro Zeitgeist editor, as history shows, is here to reinforce. Andy has been blocked numerous times for tendentiousness. Taking extremely puny points now and trying to explode them into issues from weeks to months old talk page trivia? It looks that way. Its a pity more neutral editors do not oversee those related articles but they do not. There are several people that keep loose tabs on it and probably that is the reason I am there, to keep some kind of restraint on the Movement members that show in droves. Now for whatever reason, his excuse varies, Andy is tandem editing with the Zeitgeist movement members for whatever reason. Now its especially not an improvement that he removed one of the only sourced and viable citations and information aspects of the page which sought to point out the far right origin ala John Birch Society and Alex Jones of the Zeitgeist original movie. They have removed that documented from multiple sources information which is in the Goldberg piece. She is a mainstream writer in a mainstream paper on this fringe topic. I really do not like the real or fake anger that Andy displays every day, the fake attacks, rhetorical shouting, arm waving and fake paraphrasing he does mis-characterizing my contributions. If he does it to me he is doing it to others. The subject is listed as a controversial article, care should be given. Andy is misrepresenting talk page aspects of old material for effect now. In my opinion he is editing like a rough sport, sadistically and cynically here in this. I did not bring this here. He says he is reporting himself because I asked him to cool it. I am not a litigious type of editor on Wikipedia. I just thought it best to caution him about removing the information from a viable, 'ggod' source in an article that has little good sourcing. One more thing the user TheDevilsAdvocate has a block record of edit warring on related '911' conspiracy theory articles [14] and previously edited in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidently Earl seems to think that attacking other contributors here is a good smokescreen for his inability to provide the slightest evidence that I've been "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, I can't find the slightest evidence to back up Earl's assertion about TheDevilsAdvocate "previously edit[ing] in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article" either [15][16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I have made plenty of edits that Zeitgeist supporters and conspiracy theorists would not like. Characterizing my edits as "pro-Zeitgeist" or anything similar is nonsense. Most of my edits to the Zeitgeist articles have been to remove edits claiming or strongly insinuating that the Zeitgeist film is antisemitic. Those edits have been primarily pushed by Earl.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mmm. After being absent from the article a long time you suddenly come here to slash and burn another editor? You also are editing the article in an edit warring matter over whether the group is conspiracy theory oriented as to category which seems pretty obvious which direction that is going as to the answer. [17]. As mentioned you were blocked from editing a 911 article for edit warring and now you are edit warring that the Zeitgeist Movement is not in the conspiracy category. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the report on ANI. That is how I became involved here at this moment. As to the category, it is redundant as the Zeitgeist Movement category is a sub-cat of the "conspiracy theorists" category. I do think the article itself could do more to note the role conspiracy theories play in the movement, but the category is redundant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised at the level of inaccurate material being posted here by Earl King Jr. -- Just to be clear, on June 22, Earl King Jr. cursed at another editor on the talk page [18] -- Yes, we're all adults here, but that should never be acceptable. -- Regarding his editing in general he is one of the most polarized editors I've come across on Wikipedia. The article in question is viewed as a type of ego war; when he doesn't get his way he tries to find another angle. For example, his wall of text above has to attack the credibility of other editors in order to preserve his own. He attacks Andy because he removed some hotly disputed material when in fact it was one of the wisest editing decisions I've seen during my years on Wikipedia. To give you an idea of how inappropriate Earl can be when it comes to evaluating material, have a look at this discussion. [19] -- Under the assumption that I will also be attacked here, I need to disclose that I was blocked for edit-warring on the article in question in August of 2013. The block was appropriate and I take full responsibility for it. What Earl also needs to understand is that another editor's behavior should never be used as a defense for one's own. -- On the topic of edit-warring, I brought a complaint against Earl in May of this year which could've resulted in a block [20] (See the admin's closing comments). -- I won't state what I think is required here but I ask that whoever takes on the task of evaluating Earl's behavior to please investigate it thoroughly. Regards -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess for the future of this series of articles are wide spread topic bans...none of you are innocent. I reiterate that arguing on behalf of a crackpot notion like the Zeitgeist nonsense is one of the less useful ways to spend ones time.--MONGO 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would remind you that WP:ANI isn't a forum, and that our own personal opinions about what is or isn't a 'crackpot notion' is of no relevance to how we should behave on talk pages, or on how we determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh...looking at that article and your "contributions" there maybe you should quit while you're ahead. I predict a minimum of a topic ban should you persist with your ownership and personal attacks.--MONGO 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note. Since it seems evident that nothing is going to be done to rectify Earl King Jr.'s endless POV-pushing, and since I'm no longer prepared to put up with TZM supporters describing me as 'Fascist' for objecting to their endless use of the talk page for the promotion of their deranged ideology (which incidentally has more than a passing resemblance to early Italian Fascism in some respects), I'm taking this article (and the related movies) off my watchlist. I'll leave the POV-pushers on both sides to fight it out amongst themselves - hopefully, our readers will be able to see clearly enough that Wikipedia is incapable of producing encyclopaedic coverage of such topics, and will look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea!--MONGO 18:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Up to you on that. Apparently the motivation of this Ani is your being upset that I warned you on your talk page about removing a whole section of information [21] and you decided to self report yourself and turn that in to some kind of a contest of wills and policy. I pointed out that you have been editing in tandem with members or hangers on of Zeitgeist in order to in your mind keep the article neutral. I think that was a mistake in the sense that we have to go where the citation information brings us and sometimes that might seem like someone is being overly critical, but doing things like cutting off parts of written thoughts from sources to get a certain feeling of positive promotion in the article goes against honest representation of what the thing is. If you edit to keep things like that in the article then you become part of the problem of skewing the information. Balance is looking the citation information not tit for tatting pro's and cons of this and that about the group. I suggest you keep editing the articles but less aggressively with the Zeitgeist supporters and stop accusing this editor of malicious intent. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rough sport plaything really where you can attack people for next to nothing though you just did that. It takes some social skills also. I never pushed a pov beyond citations and that is not my pov. Also I am not 'little', actually I am quite large. Last time I checked I seem to be rather literate also. I guess all humans are dishonest and probably hypocritical to some degree but this is probably not a good time for you to bring that up. I have the right to comment on what you are saying here. Your anger notwithstanding is misplaced anyway since you never got that I am just trying to improve that particular article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

" Last time I checked I seem to be rather literate also". Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose that Earl King Jr. be banned from any edits related to The Zeitgeist Movement. To sum up the reasons:

• Redirecting film articles to movement article without prior discussion and edit-warring over it.
  • Zeitgeist: The Movie - [22] [23] [24]
  • Zeitgeist: Addendum - [25] [26] [27] [28] [29].
  • Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - [30] [31] [32].
• Attempting to label Zeitgeist films and movement as antisemitic or far-right.
  • The Zeitgeist Movement - [33] [34]
  • Zeitgeist: The Movie - [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
• Edits meant to imply the Zeitgeist movement is a ploy to get money (context).
  • The Zeitgeist Movement - [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50].
  • Peter Joseph - [51] [52] [53] [54] [55].

Seems clear Earl has a hostile POV towards the films and movement and he is editing the article to push that POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'Devils Advocate' above, a pro Zeitgeist movement editor recently removed the category of conspiracy theory on the article by marginally edit warring. The Zeitgeist movie is all about 911. It appears according to The Devils Advocates Block log that he is topic banned from Zeitgeist material then because it is all about 911 conspiracy things [56]. So it appears that by editing at the Zeitgeist movement and related articles he is in violation of his topic ban. That explains why he stopped editing the article a while back. It looks like he is back editing 911 things again (Zeitgeist). A neutral editor on this subject is upsetting to him. Could the Admin that sanctioned him previously and topic banned him take a look or be referred here to take a look? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the messenger? You are mistaken in various respects, but this is not about me. Your attempts to deflect all criticism by going after those opposing you instead of defending your own actions speaks volumes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if The Devil's Advocate is pro-Zeitgeist or not, but the original movie and stance of the "movement" was that 9/11 was an inside job and the movie DOES in fact have anti-Semitic overtones. The Devil's Advocate was twice topic banned from 9/11 related articles and twice was blocked for violating his topic bans. I do believe his topic bans have expired though.--MONGO 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the Grump's edit that seemed to spark all this Undid revision 614238059 by Earl King Jr. (talk) THIS MISREPRESENTS THE SOURCE - revert again and I will report the matter. The source is "misrepresented" to this extent that the first quoted text omits a qualifying "at times it seems". Surely an editor with advanced literary skills ought to be able to make the necessary corrections without entering into a screaming edit war over it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Coat of Many Colours. The problem with Earl started well before that edit. Here's clear proof of that.[57] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well plainly there's form here (at least one would hope so when highly articulate and literary editors start slagging each other off as "obnoxious little shits"). My guess is that most of the world plus the few thousand actively editing Wikipedia bar four or five and their mums simply aren't worrying too much presently about this The Zeitgeist Movement article. I appreciate that POV abuse is insidious and hard to control, and in the end one simply has to walk away from it as Andy felt constrained to do, and I sympathise. I'm not going to make a vote on the Topic ban proposal because I don't know the issues. But I do know that Andy is fundamentally right about Wikipedia's shortcomings when it comes to controversies like this and I don't think you can topic ban the problem away. The whole drama is rather thoroughly debated on the Talk page and Michelle Goldberg views presently don't appear in the article. I suspect historians of popular culture (and frankly those are the hostorians most likey to interest themselves in Wikipedia) of the future will find as much to interest them in the Talk page as the Article itself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT for a topic ban -- Earl King Jr.'s problematic behavior did not stop after the first ANI brought against him[58] -- or after the admin's closing comments here[59] -- or after his recent cursing another editor on the article talk page[60] ---- Aside from being disruptive, both Earl and MONGO should know that using The Devil's Advocate block history is not a form of defense for Earl's behavior; it's clearly a deflection strategy, but odd to witness due to its transparency -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since you and Andy tandem edited the article for weeks and you are a long term pro spin Zeitgeist editor along with 'TheDevilsAdvocate' who is a 911 buff previously blocked for editing tendentiously on conspiracy related articles, a few more pro Zeitgeist people may show here. How did Andy reporting himself and calling attention that he thought I made a mistake warning him about edit warring information on his talk page suddenly turn into a witch hunt for mostly non existent 'evidence' that I deserve a topic ban and yes SomeDifferentStuff because of your super tendentious editing on these articles you were blocked before and its fair to bring that up since you are throwing everything and the kitchen sink into getting a neutral editor put off from the article, so here it is again if there is any doubt [61] since you are hamming up my supposed misdeeds, what I think is going on is that want your pro Zeitgeist spin to prevail, something you succeeded in recently with support from Andy. Neutral point of view and balance balance does not come from pro and con supporters, it comes from reliable sources. The M. Goldberg article was one of the few of those and Andy removed it. You also chopped snippets from it to promo spin the 'movement'. I agree with 'CoatOfManyColors' that Surely an editor with advanced literary skills ought to be able to make the necessary corrections without entering into a screaming edit war over it.., if it was really simple editing and working together on the project he would have done that but he did not do that though I asked him to do it, instead of arguing and editing tendentiously. Andy in my opinion really should be blocked from editing for the charm offensive he used above describing another editor. What gives with that? Really my experience of him is that he should not be on Wikipedia at all because of his attitude and way he does what he does. Should he really get a free pass with his statements above? I don't mind a little bitching, but that was way over the top. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Earl is not the problem. It would mot be appropriate, and it would not improve the article, to ban him. Earl knows the source material, and his edits pretty much reflect the view of the movement found in the sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support as proposer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• No Andy has been proven wrong in this latest attempt to prove what he is trying to prove. I am not pro or con. I follow the citations and see where they lead. Its a pity the pov editors try to arrange information for their pov. Balance is not attained by factions but by reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support + topic ban from making new threads at ANI and AN.--v/r - TP 01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Aeon-characteristic (Closed)

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

---

User is an SPA, basically trolling the Zeitgeist pages, called Andy the Grump a "fascist"...in this discussion.--MONGO 11:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Par for the course unfortunately, and I doubt that a block would achieve anything of lasting significance, which is why I'd tended to just try to explain policies about sourcing, NPOV, not using the talk page as a forum etc, and then ignore it. Which is fine until experienced contributors start using the talk page as a forum. Experienced contributors including you, Mongo. [62][63] Why should we expect TZM supporters to comply with policies we ignore? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right, Andy....why should you expect others to abide by policies that you ignore. I guess it would be unfair to block the SPA for calling you a fascist and not block you for calling him insane....very valid point!--MONGO 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right - I lost my temper after having to put up with endless soapboxing from the likes of Aeon-characteristic and you on the talk page. What's your excuse? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy! You're the one that started the thread, and its one of several of late that you have been advocating for penalities to be applied against Earl King....and on that page you're insulting everyone and you're doing that here even calling Earl an "obnoxious little shit" above and you want action brought against others yet your hands are just as dirty. Really?--MONGO 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly an editor who is not here to edit an encyclopedia, but the individual has made no article edits and has only been active for a month. Seems to me like you are just trying to distract from Earl's conduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Block the I.P. and also Andy for gross breaches of editing civility. No free pass for Andy being above the guidelines and in this case over the top breach of civility like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick type of breach. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See below. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Aeon, pretty much per TDA's reasoning. I found him through his edits on my watchlist and not this ANI section - and thus haven't reviewed the comments of Andy or of Earl. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal for blocking Andy the Grump from editing (Closed)

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

---

I propose this because if he is treating me like this he is also doing it to others Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) end quote. I think this has all gone too far. I don't care how long he is blocked or what the constraints of a block are but maybe it could be for outrageously ignoring standards of civil discourse. Any value that Andy has as an editor I think is annulled by his rhetorical upbraiding for little to no reason of fellow editors. So, I think the statement he made above is a little like a block death wish by him. He is making that statement with utter impunity here. This deserves a block in my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow Earl, you just completely violated ANI guidelines by inserting this thread. Hopefully an admin will block you from any further disruption (but I won't hold my breath). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Given your complete failure to back up your repeated assertions that I'd been engaging in disrupting Wikipedia with the slightest bit of evidence, and give the fact that you responded to my statement that I was taking the articles off my watchlist with a patronising (and semi-literate) lecture on 'neutrality', I suspect that there may well be some sympathy with my characterisation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am asking that you be blocked for making the statement you made above, this one Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) which to me signifies a lot of your style of editing and interacting with fellow editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can see what you are asking. Though people might well wonder why someone who claims to be offended by my comment feels compelled to repeat it verbatim in successive posts... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I think you abuse En.Wikipedia using it as a punching bag with little to no regard for people you are supposed to be working with. You do not play fair with others. You bully people. Your initial point that I was POV pushing is not accurate but you will not relent. It has been pointed out by experienced editors here that it is inaccurate. You have support with two pro Zeitgeist editors that you tandem edited the article with prviously. Thats about it. I never insulted you just asked you to stop what you were doing and warned you on your talk page. You then self reported yourself to contest what I was saying about removing the M. Goldberg citation information. Experienced editors, NPOV editors have confirmed this in their opinion here above. Since you originated this litigious of your opinion discussion that I am a pov editor on these article and only have support from SomeDifferentStuff a person formerly blocked on the article for tendentious editing and edit warring and for sure a pro Zeitgeist supporter editor and TheDevilsAdvocate a 911 conspiracy buff blocked numerous times for edit warring pro 911 conspiracy theory, it seems that you characterized the situation wrong and your supporters are either ax grinding Zeitgeist or that 911 was an inside job. Now in this ANI you have done what you did above which is off the charts against guidelines of responsible editing by name calling. I am asking you be blocked because partly you have a long block history of uncivil action that does not seem to deter you in the here and now. The last ani you did you repeatedly called my contributions bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit. You are not above the same expectations that Wikipedia guideline ask for and the original reason for this ani at the very top has not proven out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Poss legal threat

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

---

Hi all,

Michelle bega has made multiple edits to article Leslie Bega - in which they either remove content verified by reliable sources, or change content not verified by reliable sources (ie. source non-existent). In their latest removal, they made a legal threat here.

Michelle continues to change the DOB of Leslie from 1967 to 1977 and changes the one of three sources used to verify the age from http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/leslie_r_bega_born_1967_9778968 to http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/leslie_r_bega_born_1977_9778968 — the latter source does not exist. Furthermore, the other two sources used to verify Leslie's 1967 birth, both confirm the latter too: [64], [65]. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for both the legal threat and the continuing disruption after multiple warnings. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil actions and unbased accusations by ProgGuy

For several days now, an edit war has existed between ProgGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous user 108.64.172.207 have been edit warring over musical genres listed within the infobox of Mr. Bungle article. Neither user were in violation of 3RR, nor were they vandalizing the article. 108.64.172.207 was reverting to a version of the genre list that has been generally accepted for about 4 years now. ProgGuy would then revert the article back to the way he wants it. After the second day, ProgGuy did address the issue on the Mr. Bungle talk page but it was more of a command to stop adding the death metal genre, than it was an attempt at coming to a consensus. [66] Two days later, ProgGuy took to 108.64.172.207's talk page with a demand that the reverts stop. He also stated that the information was unsourced yet his own reverts were equally unsoured. I also suggested both of them trying to actually discuss it on the article's talk page in order to gain a consensus by everyone and not just him. [67] It was then that I attempted to step in and address both of them. [68] That led to a response from ProgGuy in which he made unbased accusations of being 108.64.172.207 and that my using an anonymous IP was considered by him to be "an act of cowardice." [69] I assured him that I was NOT the anonymous user and invited him to have an admin do an IP check on me to prove it. I additionally mentioned again that the version he was reverting to himself was also not sourced. [70] Personally, I don't have a opinion about what genres are listed for this vastly multi-genre band. In the end, genres can be a matter of opinion and taste. My point all along has been that if someone is going to remove information that they feel is poorly sourced or not sourced at all, they should also have to provide sources for the information that they are putting in its place. ProgGuy's next course of action was to place a bogus edit warring report against 108.64.172.207 in which he stated that the user had been warned multiple times to stop edit warring. [71] No procedure was followed before doing so. BOTH users had been edit warring but no proper warning procedure was followed and the accusing party was just as guilty. In fairness to the anonymous user, I spoke up and made these facts known. [72] The result was an admin semi-protecting the article for 3 days. [73] Meanwhile, the reverts continue on the article and the "discussion" continuing on the article's talk page. ProgGuy continues to assess the reverts as vandalism and to accuse me, once again, of being the anonymous user, 108.64.172.207. In doing so, he's also brought name calling of "coward" back into play. [74] This is not an isolated issue. It's also worth noting that he has made the accusation against another user, SonOfPlisskin, of being the very same anonymous editor, 108.64.172.207 within the Mudvayne article talk page. [75] It seems anybody with a different opinion must be using an anonymous IP address and that we're all cowards in ProgGuy's eyes. Many of us are vetran editors and no, we're not all going to agree or even get along, but for the most part, we all try to work together. Before the edit warring is even address, the big issue seems to be civility. Name calling, accusations and false reports do not have a place here. NJZombie (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The semi protection was inappropriate and I have notified the admin involved accordingly. Will warn all editors involved in the edit warring, hopefully people are willing to provide proper sourcing and discuss it, rather than doing pointless reverts. —Dark 11:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On a completely separate tangent and for future reference, admins are unable to run IP checks. Our elusive checkusers are the only ones that have access to those tools. —Dark 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. That's what I actually meant but just chose the wrong wording. Thanks again! NJZombie (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Did you really just claim that no procedure had been followed on my part? Seems like you're the one making these edits and are actively trying too hard to defend them rather than acknowledging that maybe there's a problem with adding a fancrufty genre without any sources to defend it. "Generally accepted" nothing. It's either accepted or it isn't. You can't be "somewhat pregnant". ProgGuy (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And the baseless accusations continue. I did say you failed to follow procedure. You filed a report on the user and said you gave warning when all you did was tell him to stop while continuing to edit war yourself. Whether you're wrong or right, continuing to revert back and forth is edit warring. You also accused them of vandalism and although annoying, no, putting up information you disagree with, wrong or right is not vandalism. While I truly do not care about your suspicions that I'm that editor, PLEASE use WP:CHK and follow that procedure to file a WP:SOCK report on me and that user. Even without the check user process, it's actually pretty simple to look up an IP location and see that the editor in question is in Florida. My own IP address of 24.146.186.251 is in NJ, hence the NJ in my username. that being said, I've now given you the link to start the procedure of proving me to be this other editor. Use it and put your mind at rest. Sometimes people just don't agree with you and will say it. NJZombie (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi

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

---

There has been a multi-day pattern of disruptive editing by Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) , specifically on articles and categories related to Misogyny/Misandry:

Today, Obiwankenobi edited the category for “violence against men”, to make it so it’s no longer a subcategory of “Misandry” [[76]] He did this while involved in a debate on the original research noticeboard about that very category in question. The debate specifically involves this category’s relation to the misandry category, so it seems inappropriate to alter the category during the course of the debate. He also seems to be making a lot of controversial edits on many different categories related to misogyny/misandry, I'm not familiar enough to comment on all the other changes, but I think someone knowledgeable about categories maybe should look into the multiple category changes currently being made by this editor.

Additionally, this is all occurring after an informal admin effort to help this user avoid a topic ban for disruptive editing on another article related to misogyny/misandry, YesAllWomen. On this article, Obiwankenobi bludgeoned the article talk page and closed an RfC he was involved in. Full details can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#YesAllWomen, but in the end, Obiwankenobi agreed to edit something unrelated for a week or so, to avoid formal action, but this he hasn’t occurred, so it seems formal action may be needed. to avoid issue being brought to ANI. At the very least I think there needs to be more eyes on all the category changes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify where formal action was threatened anywhere? The way you've worded it is that Obi agreed to a week to avoid formal action, but when I read the thread, it appears Obi agreed to a week in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize there's a lot to wade through in the above linked discussion, but here are a couple of difs to relevant comments:

[[77]],[[78]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will leave this in TParis's capable hands, but you are both correct. He agreed to back away, thus avoiding it being taken to ANI, where action was possible. I think you are just wording it differently. ie: "formal action" == "taken to ANI", rather than it meaning any particular sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm actually heading off to the gym. Sorry, I just wanted clarification on this point. I hate to see good deeds misconstrued as admission of guilt.--v/r - TP 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it was an offer of a good dead after realizing he had probably pushed it a bit far in the discussion, but a good dead is only a good dead if you follow through. Bob doesn't seem to be asking for a block here, he is asking for oversight. I've done what I can, but my methods of come up short, and I'm just not fully well right now. It needs an another experienced, calm mediator to review and assist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hate how the categories are used here, so no comment there. I see nothing to make me think Obi's agreement was to avoid any sort of sanction. Arkon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, it appears that one of the changes put Domestic violence and pregnancy in the "violence against men" category. [[79]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Only indirectly as a grandparent. In the same way, adding Category:Rape as a subcategory of Category:Violence against women means Male rape now has a grandparent of Category:Violence against women. There are many such inconsistencies, please don't blame them on me! This is due to the nature of this part of the category tree - we have gendered parents with ungendered children like Category:Rape or Category:Domestic violence - so as a result some of the articles in the ungendered categories don't really fit in the gendered grandparent categories. This isn't my doing, this has been this way for a while as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• comment Bobo is correct that I went too far in a recent debate. I let my emotions get the better of me, but I've apologized, and I apologize again to Bobo and Tara for the disruption there. and I have already stepped away from that particular discussion on the advice of Dennis. As for the other edits, I do a lot of category editing and when categories are mentioned I take a look and make changes if I think they are warranted. The discussion Bobo refers to was not about the proper parent categories of Category:Violence against men but rather whether a particular article should be categorized in a particular category, i.e. Category:Violence against men in North America. I made the change to make Misandry->Violence against men a see also link instead of a parent/child relationship, since violence against men is not always driven by misandry, but often by other motives, such as religious hatred or political violence, terrorism, war, etc (see Srebrenica massacre for a classic example of violence against men that was nonetheless not driven by misandry but rather by ethnoreligious hatred). That said, in the interests of good will I am self-reverting those changes and will engage on the relevant talk pages to seek further consensus. It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. I welcome any other suggestions you all have here on how to de-escalate this situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point on Srebrenica. Given the historical rareness of Amazons in military ranks, we might as well put Category:Battles into Violence against men, but that doesn't mean that battles should be considered misandry. I quote a relevant passage from Commons:COM:OVERCAT, which is simpler than anything I see here on en:wp —

Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

Let the misandry category be for articles about subjects such as militant feminism. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted those changes now, but I am starting a discussion at WikiProject gender studies to cover this and the misogyny category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. You shouldn't expect anyone to have unlimited patience with you. Bobo and I had both addressed your tendentious editing on your talk page previously and were rebuffed. When every objection to your behavior is met with 'it's water under the bridge' and 'let's move forward' rather than any acknowledgement that you could have handled the matter better, and when the behavior itself keeps recurring, you have to expect that eventually someone is going to turn to a dispute resolution venue of some sort. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Let me make an observation: Here just as on my talk page, I think everyone is acting in good faith. Some nerves are a bit raw but no one is asking for sanctions, no one is getting rude. Both sides of the original dispute are frustrated, but that is just part of editing in disputed areas. It happens. We seem to have an agreement by Obi and good faith actions on his part. Perhaps we should just close and walk away and let time heal old wounds. I don't see any "bad guys" here, and I don't want this to get dragged out to a point that we create one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am acting with good faith and I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions. I just think you should be aware that the calm reasonable response that Obiwankenobi has been giving in front of you and other admins, who have the power to impose sanctions, is in contrast to the continued behavior and the repeated rebuffing of fellow editor's concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I really think that a less biased editor should be the one who does things like unlink the category Violence against women from Misogyny or Violence against men from Misandry. The former is a long standing category which covers dozens of articles. More importantly, there are a number of instances where an article would have been in both Misogyny and Violence against women and that it now would not be. The article for Violence against women describes it as "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." However, Obiwankenobi seems to be convinced that these kinds of violence do not presuppose the victim's gender as a motive. I believe this is to eventually move towards including things such as acts of war as gendered violence and completely restructure the way that both categories are used. Considering this editors contentious stance concerning feminism, I think it is very possible that these efforts are an attempt to "move the goalposts" as it were concerning categories that focus on both men's and women's issues --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. If you'd like the participate in the discussion on this topic, I started it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. That said, I would be careful about relying upon our wikipedia article, I'd focus on the sources themselves instead, which I provided an example of in the discussion I just linked, which gives about 6 or 7 different reasons for rape in warfare for example. the way we have used these categories in the past is for violence where the victim was selected for violence based on their gender - not where the gender of the victims MOTIVATED the violence - the causes of violence are complex, but they sometimes manifest themselves in particular people being selected for violence based on their gender. For example, sexual trafficking of women is not motivated by hatred of women, but by profit. Sometimes both happen at once, but not always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are editing directly against the basic ways that a term is described on website, then it shows we, as a community, have some significant problems with our understanding of said terms --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read this, which gives about 20 pages of different theories as to the causes and motives of violence against women. Very few of them are "Because they are women". It suggests to me we should update the lede of our article, actually. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but without specific guidelines concerning how to use a category, surely we should use how the topic is described on website? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Arkon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, there hasn't really been any contribution by admins and the discussion seems to be unresolved. I'm certainly still very unhappy about how disruptive Obi's editing has been the past few days --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be hastily closed either. It appears the category referred to above “violence against men”, has been nominated for deletion: (here) and the arguments for deletion coming from multiple editors relate largely to Obiwankenobi’s use of this category. I’m not sure the answer, but if admins could help facilitate the use of this category by Obiwankenobi, it might go a long way in saving a category from deletion, which has the potential to be useful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A category like that sounds like a novelty item, like the proverbial "man bites dog" (or more recently, soccer player). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage people to take a look at the sources I provided here which provide some quotes and context for just a small part of the literature around gender-based violence against men (I didn't provide sources around Male rape outside of war, Domestic violence against men, Prison rape, and other forms of gender-based violence against men, I just focused on things like gender-selective killing of civilian males in conflict and sexual violence during conflict enacted against males.) I realize this is a sensitive topic, and many people may not have been exposed to this literature (and some express disbelief that violence against men is a real thing!); and it's certainly a topic much less covered than violence against women, but the topic of gender-based violence against men is a real field of study and I think it's quite useful as a category. Like all relatively new categories, it is still undeveloped and needs help to grow and refine inclusion criteria. Your help and input would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This story is every bit as qualified for a "Violence against men" category as anything you've argued for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

−

• Comment: This guy is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a classic Men's Rights Activist POV-pusher. His disruption is seen across the website on articles related to the topic of "Violence against Men" which is an advocacy position of the MRAs. He denies being involved in such, but in his contributions it is easy to see that his actions are never helpful. At all. jps (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to be letting up -- This is what some might call a snow job. Why are we tolerating this kind of behavior? jps (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a new concept for me at wikipedia - an editor who on talk pages offers reliable source evidence on why a category is relevant is attacked for doing that. How about you address the sources and content rather than the editor. If you believe the material is irrelevant, then you should make that case. My reading of the material indicates that indeed there are instances where men are subjected to violence because there are men. If you are arguing otherwise, I'd like to understand why?Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

jps: the only way to get him off gender issues would be a detailed case before ArbCom - "the community" doesn't have the attention span, and there are too many ignorant, sexist doofuses here to ever get community consensus behind a ban for tendentious sexism, or relentless realisation of the MRM agenda. Something like the Noleander case might do it. Does Obiwankenobi misrepresent sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that he is turning "gender-based violence" into "violence against men" as means to claim victimhood where there isn't any evidence that the gender itself is victimized. This is a rather ugly tactic that the MRM has been using as of late, similar to other groups who find themselves with only polemical and ideological support, they twist sources that are completely not about MRA into such. That's basically what's going on here. jps (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

jps I've only been tracking the debates around the 2014 Isla Vista killings‎‎ where some editors have objected to adding the category to that page. In my view, there's enough support in reliable sources for including those attacks in Violence Against Men cat. I'm curious to whether or not you'd agree. Is it really a stretch?Mattnad (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a stretch. The only reason that this is being argued over is because it was pointed out early on in social media that the perpetrator of the shooting spree was a raging misogynist. No, he was not a misandrist. He was a misogynist. And he was directing his hatred towards women as a class. That his violent actions ended up being acted out against men is quite beside the point, but the people who picked up on this are all MRAs with their hatred of the #yesallwomen cri de guerre inspiring action against misogyny. I don't think either categorical violence label really needs to be on that page, but the violence against men category is clearly just being included out of political tit-for-tat. There is no other reason. jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

JPS do you have any sources that support your assertion that men are not subject to gender-based violence? Any sources, at all? I've provided about 30-40 that explicitly discuss various forms of violence against men as gender-based violence or sexual violence or 'sexual and gender-based violence'. Do you have sources or are these just your personal opinions? Preferably high quality sources like [80] which studied sexual and gender based violence against men and boys in the congo?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already pointed out on my talkpage that what is actually missing is a single source which indicates that men are subject to violence against them solely as a gender. You didn't respond. The study you cite is not looking at targeting men as men, but rather targeting men of the larger groups that are being targeted. But you cynically and MRA-lly use that and other studies which study gender segregation in massacres as evidence for a categorical claim which is not based in sources but only in the misogynistic MRM politics you pretend not to care about but seem to enjoy citing (e.g. Adam_Jones_(Canadian_scholar)). jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying violence against men isn't studied as a topic? Or are you saying you don't think it's a valid /real topic unless such violence is targeted at every man on the planet? Do you have any sources which take this point of view? It sounds a lot like a personal opinion. Me, I go by sources. If a source says "X is gender-based violence against men", I tend to trust it esp if said source is cited by lots of other reliable sources, which is the case with Jones work. What sources are you relying upon? Your contributions have been remarkably source-free. If you think that (violence against (gender)) is not valid unless the whole gender is targeted, then you would be in disagreement with a vast literature on violence against women (and the growing literature on violence against men), which studies the intersection of gendered and sexual violence with relations of power, ethnicity, religion, social structure and so on. You would be hard pressed to find many examples of "I hate all women on the planet" in the VAW category - instead you find such gender-based violence, even against women, intersects with ethnicity or other structures. and by the way, I can cite that too, but will you read it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would be a great idea. Certainly calling people who disagree with you sexist worked out so well last time. Arkon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Obiwankenobi on articles relating to gender discrimination, misogyny and misandry

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

---

• Oh come on guys, this is easy. Support topic ban. WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. If we topic ban everyone who's willing to work on this topic, then what? I realize that it's a sensitive subject area, but there are also a bunch of overly sensitive people working on it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia needs to crack down on POV pushers who put knowledgable, conscientious editors through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. That hemorrhages our best people like nothing else. Obiwankenobi, as concisely as possible, please state your claims and provide links to the reliable sources that support them.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we do need to crack down on POV pushers, but Obiwankenobi is not one of those POV pushers. If anything he is the one being put through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. It is not Obi's responsibility to come here and defend himself unless you first put forth a decent case against him. The original ANI filing did not contain much in the way of diff's to claim Obi was disruptive. And this topic ban proposal contains absolutely nothing other than one editor's unsupported assertions as to his behavior. As such I Strongly Oppose actions against him, and think maybe we should be taking a look at cracking down on some actual POV pushers. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted evidence that Nikola Tesla and not Galileo Ferraris invented the first practical AC induction motor, I could give you five books printed by some of the English speaking world's most reputable academic publishers in less then 10 minutes. Common Obi. Now's your chance to shine.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atlantictire. If you're talking about violence against men, I've added a bunch of sources here that discuss the topic of gender-based violence against men You may also be interested in reading this piece which was released last month, entitled "Into the Mainstream: Addressing sexual violence against men and boys in conflict" and highlights the specific issues faced by men who have been victimized by such violence. There is also a recently started campaign with a video here worth watching that covers the double standard of societal reactions to violence against men vs violence against women, which we also see playing out in some of the reactions to these categories. Note that none of these materials come from MRA, they come from respected NGOs, scholars, international organizations, and the like. I think at some point it would be worth developing a decent article on this topic, the old articles which did exist were not good. I realize this is a contentious topic area and I also accept that I have gone too far in certain conversations, and I'm sorry for that, sometimes I let emotions get the better of me, and I have backed away from several discussions already in this regard. I don't think it's POV pushing however to populate a category of violence against men, any moreso than it would be POV pushing to populate the category of violence against women (for example, I created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it with several instances. I know there are a few items that have been disputed that have been added to these categories, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss those (not here),and will abide by consensus. If there are other corrective actions you'd suggest in lieu of a topic ban I'm also willing to consider those.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, you can dispense with the overwrought niceties with me. I consider WP:NPOV far more important than spectacular displays of civility. Let's keep it real.

So that's it? All you've got for me is one paper? That does not a topic make. If a bunch of papers are stitched together via a premise that isn't explicitly advanced by any reliable sources, that's WP:SYNTH.

Second, your paper is in no way arguing that men and boys are targeted because they are men and boys. Do you understand? There are places that are extremely violent where everyone is targeted, and then there's the specific targeting of women and girls because they are women and girls. Your paper even says that even in these places where many men and boys are victimized, victimization of women is still more prevalent. You need to find something that specifically says boys and men are targeted as opposed to women and girls because they are men and boys. Otherwise, you're superimposing an WP:OR reading on your sources and wasting everyone's precious time and driving them insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take this to another board? Maybe we could discuss the category at WikiProject gender studies? Or my talk page, if you wish. Briefly, I didn't provide one paper, if you click the link above, I have provided 11. And that is just on the topic of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict situations. A lot more could be provided around domestic violence, and male rape. At least one of the papers I've found explicitly states "A relatively recent term, coined to indicate mass killing that targets a specific sex, is gendercide. The term denotes sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men." Many of the other sources call these forms of violence "gender-based violence", which is the stated scope of the category. I agree there is non-gender based violence that affects men and women in conflict, such as bombs going off in market-places or security forces fighting one another, I wouldn't call any of those gender-based violence. re: Synth, remember that we're discussing a category, for which SYNTH doesn't apply. If at some point an article is developed, then you'd have a point re: synth, but some of the sources do explicitly link sexual violence against men WITH sex-selective massacres of men (e.g. gendercide/androcide), and with forced conscription and human trafficking for labor (or, sometimes, sex trafficking). I concur that this topic is not at all covered to the extent VAW is, but it a topic and is differentiated from non-gender-based violence that happens to affect men, such as soldiers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have two papers, which still does not a topic make. One on extremely violent places saying men are targeted as well as women, although women are still targeted more frequently. The other which bizarrely calls men killing men of other ethnicities "gendercide." I believe the non-WP:FRINGE term for that is genocide.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided 11 papers in the link, actually, did you look? As for men being targeted because they are men, Jones' work on gendercide may be useful here, he studied the history of sex-selective massacres, one of the most famous recent examples being Srebrenica massacre, where the men and boys were separated from the women and executed. Being selected for death because you are a man is the very definition of violence because they are men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is not helpful here because Jones is the author of a POV website and not a reliable source. I wouldn't care if the topic were gender discrimination or daffodil varieties. This is NOT about Obi being a sexist pig or something. If you had been doing this to me for weeks, I'd be ready to explode as well. TParis and other admins, this is exactly the kind of endless game that needs to stop if we want to keep people who are knowledgable and serious about content.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, the Journal of Genocide research is not a reliable source? Or... While there has been some academic dispute about Jone's approach, that is no reason to throw out his ideas entirely, esp since they have been taken up by others. Anyway, if you want to discuss the VAM category further please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and start a section there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is a WP:FRINGE academic supporting the same WP:ADVOCACY that you are supporting. jps (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Fringe" argument is starting to take on the boy who cried wolf characteristics. Fringe has deviated on this project from a word meaning deviating from accepted science to meaning anything we disagree with. Biased sources are not banned per Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. They should receive appropriate weight for the level they are accepted in academics. If they are poorly received in academics, then we attribute to the source and we don't use Wikipedia voice (and give it less prominence in prose). But it isn't outright banned.--v/r - TP 21:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Nothing has been presented to warrant such a thing. Arkon (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or 1RR restriction This editor is aggressive in both promoting fringe topics concerning men's rights and framing radical and separatist feminism as misandrist. It would really be best if these topic areas were framed by people editing from WP:NPOV and not used to push bias. Furthermore, this user badgers anyone who disagrees with his stance on talk pages with an energy that prevents two-sided debates. These bad edit habits are especially valid in his editing in the Violence against men, Violence against women and Misandry categories where he defines consensus as "whatever I like" and hounds editors who disagree with him on their user talk pages. There is definite WP:OWN on these categories and I don't think you could find a single article in Violence against men that has not been added and defended by him and him alone --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oh look, more accusations without diffs! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- having unpopular opinions is not a bannable offence. Reyk _YO! 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have unpopular opinions. What isn't fine is wasting talk page space and hours and hours of editors' time with endless wordgames and violation after violation of WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICK in service of a WP:FRINGE POV. WP:PUSH is Wikipedia's deadliest habit, and it's very, very, very civil.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The person is here as a classic POV-pusher for the MRA. His attempt to WP:OWN these types of articles is an extreme and utter distraction. He needs to be removed as unsuited. jps (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Obiwankenobi is one of the better editors here and a number of people here view him as possible admin material. He is far braver than most to take on such an important yet divisive topic and the amount of personal attacks, false accusations and intimidation he receives for doing so is a disgrace and needs to stop (see this discussion for some examples [81]). The fact that Obi has remained calm and courteous throughout this experience is to his credit. As for issues such as POV pushing and breaches of NPOV etc, well those problems apply infinitely more to the editing patterns of one or two of the people who'd like to see a ban happen and I hope such it boomerangs back against them. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
• Comment - 'I'm not ready to vote yet, and will need to think about it more, but Obiwankenobi I'm still concerned because you haven't acknowledged that you've gone too far in your actions. Above, you acknowledge going too far in conversation, but honestly, it’s beyond that. It concerns edit warring “violence against men” category into articles where it doesn't seem to belong [[82]], [[83]],[[84]], and closing RfC you were involved in [85], and aggressive reverting of Kevin Gorman when he was merely trying to clean up that mess you made when your category changes put the article domestic violence and pregnancy into the “violence against men” category. IMO, what is needed to help end the disruption is an understanding on your part that your repeated actions have caused disruption, not just passionate conversation on the issue. Additionally, I think an alternative to a topic ban for Obiwankenobi might be imposing a 1RR restriction for this user in this topic area. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(fixed ec) Hi Bobo, I have indeed acknowledged going too far, and acknowledge same in terms of editing content as well as on talk page discussions, I was wrong to put that RFC on hold, although I did so with the best of intentions, but I also saw the error of my ways and reverted and apologized and added my neutral framing instead. As for Kevin Gorman's issue, I've discussed this with him already, the basic problem is having a non-gendered category such as Category:Domestic violence that is in a gendered parent like Category:Violence against women. As a result of this, Domestic violence against men is now a subset of Category:Violence against women which is the grandparent; in the same way, Male rape is in Category:Rape which is in Category:Violence against women, thus the inconsistency that so disturbed Kevin actually cuts both ways, it's inherent in the structure and isn't a problem per se with Violence against men, the same problems happen with the VAW category. I've proposed a discussion on the inclusion criteria and on the structuring of both the VAW and VAM categories, but here is not the place to have that discussion, as soon as things calm down I'd be happy to engage and seek consensus on the best structure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a 1RR restriction within this topic area would be a great solution to this and probably encourage talk page discussions between editors here. Obi quite often passes 3RR when trying to implement 'Violence against men' to articles and this would help keep the editors patterns in line --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is that there are no reliable sources to support the POV. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. When editors just keep going, playing endless word games, and refuse to surrender to reliable sources while remaining civil, they eventually force everyone into ArbCom. This is deadly for editor retention.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't engaged with the sources I provided. Can you find any sources whatsoever to support your point of view, e.g. that men are not subject to gender-based violence? I'm waiting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This looks like a content dispute, not essentially a behavioral one. BMK (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Under no circumstance - This is a ridiculous amount of overkill and doesn't fit the situation in any way. There is a content dispute, a little bludgeoning went on, it never got nasty, just frustrating. There is no way I could possibly oppose this any stronger than I do. I find the very idea offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I am familiar with Obiwankenobi's editing pattern and I believe that his is an obvious case of WP:POV pushing in order to right great wrongs. I had lengthy discussions with the editor in three articles where his stated objective was to prove that "gender-based discrimination exists for men". A few editors, myself included, explained that this is not what the articles where about and that we needed to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the subjects (some examples from one discussion about the men's rights movement: [86][87][88][89]), but Obi kept bringing these sources about discrimination against men. I was surprised that an experienced editor didn't seem to understand our core content policies like WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. Since then he has been doing those weird things to our category system, adding his Category:Violence against men and other categories to all kinds of articles (e.g., he says that the 2014 Isla Vista killings is an example of violence against men). This isn't about having unpopular opinions. It's about wanting to fight what he construes as discrimination against men and using Wikipedia as a means, see WP:Advocacy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that your Diffs are to what -other- editors have said, not what Obi has said. Arkon (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic, you may disagree on the Isla Vista killings, but about 8 other editors by my count support that categorization, so if I'm guilty of thought-crime on this matter, so are they. Those other diffs are, I think, about a single word "perceived"... anyway, we wikipedians argue over all sorts of things, but that argument was over a single word.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

THOUGHT-CRIME? Good lord, you're a mean drunk. (joke)--Atlantictire (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go all Nineteen Eighty-Four on me rhetorically. Yes, it may very well be that there are other editors (like this one) who do not understand WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. See Argumentum ad populum. You claim that Rodger killed men because they were men. That's obviously not the case and unsupported by your three sources. It's one of many examples of your editing pattern where you combine published material to advance your POV. I'll let you have the last word now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooo, can I have the last word instead? It's amazing how much that sounds like a content dispute, well no, it's exactly just that. That totally justifies attempting to topic ban someone who disagrees with you, right? (Also I can't help but love your "Obviously" statement, that doesn't sound entrenched and at odds with multiple sources at all.) Arkon (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See this is where you're wrong. I don't give a damn about this topic. What I care about is allowing an editor to drag everyone through this Reddithole of endless bs-ing long after his sources and arguments have been discredited. We do have policies to stop this and nobody uses them. It's a massive drag.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Obi wan is one of our most thorough and neutral editors and I have the highest respect for him. His participation in the Chelsea Manning naming dispute was one of the only sane voice no matter the side. He was instrumental in developing the RFC that eventually got the article moved and has shown similar thoroughness in other disputes like the Hillary Rodham Clinton naming dispute. He has shown sensetivity in a very sensetive environment. Obi wan consistently works toward productive results and at times has to drag other editors by the collar to get there. When I see editors arguing with Obi on any topic, my first concern is "What POV are they pushing that he is trying to balance neutrally?"--v/r - TP 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, I wasn't party to the Chelsea Manning dispute, and have only read about it off Wikipedia but according to the press coverage there were the editors who were dead wrong, the editors who were correct, and the Arbcomers who seemed to think there was a middle ground. Also, it's not hard to know if something is FRINGE. It's got shoddy statistics, or shoddy research design, or cherry picked facts and omits relevant facts that would neutralize the POV. It uses research to support a hypothesis the research was never designed to investigate. I know zero about "men's rights" but that Jones website Obi linked to had nothing going on in terms of research that substantiated Jones' POV.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) What does your response to me have to do with Obiwan? 2) Have you read WP:ANI Advice and Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process?--v/r - TP 22:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You got me. I'm not the world's greatest wikilawyer. I wandered out of my happy realm of guitar effects onto the the AfD board one day, and have been confounded ever sense by the tremendous tolerance for endless circular discussion long after sources and arguments have been discredited. That is exactly what your fine friend Obi does..--Atlantictire (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shakehandsman and Reyk, Obiwankenobi is a good editor, I admit this out of my editing area but, I've never remember this editor as being pushy or any ownership issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagreed with Obi-Wan Kenobi lots of times in the past, but this dispute doesn't seem to warrant a topic ban, even if I am not sure of some of his stances. Perhaps Obi needs to learn to compromise a bit more, but this seems just a content dispute. If any contentious point remains unresolved, just go through RFCs.--cyclopia^speak! 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obi's a great editor and let's be honest we need more like him here, As above this seems more like a content dispute and those involved should probably take it the relevant venues or talkpage. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is politics at work. There are some very motivated editors who take issue with ANY mention that men can be targeted for violence because of their gender. I've only intersected with Obi Wan on the 2014 Isla Vista killings, but I don't see disruptive editing on Obi Wan's part there. It's the opposite, among those who take an extremist view that men were not specifically targeted, not withstanding sources, including Psychology Today that say otherwise:

• "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women.,
• "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women",
• ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. I don't think he's there yet. But he's definitely working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tom and Dennis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Baseball Bugs. While I do think that Obi-Wan is arguing from the FRINGE, I haven't found his editing to be especially disruptive (yet). Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obi is a good editor. Caden ^cool 22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, currently. Depending on the path that Obi's editing takes in the future, I can imagine him eventually ending up with a topic ban in this area, but I don't think he's done anything severely disruptive enough to warrant one yet. I have not followed every single one of his edits, and could conceivably have my mind changed if someone presented a solid enough set of diffs, but haven't seen that set of diffs prevented yet. It's fairly obvious that he's editing from a particular POV, but he is also mostly staying inside the rules while doing so, and is generally pretty collegial. I think some of his patterns of reversions were silly with a couple bordering on obnoxious, but not enough to tban someone for. He certainly should not have removed the VAW cat from an article that explicitly talked about violence against women and children as he did here just because he didn't like the fact that I had taken out the violence against men cat (because the page makes no mention of violence against men in its current state,) but I still think that's not tban worthy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This in particular was probably the strangest VAM addition (Obis contribution begins about eleven comments in): [90]. It's when a person takes Valerie Solanas seriously that I start to question their understanding of gender studies --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Comment - I notice some oppose votes from people who admit to being unfamiliar with what’s been happening in the topic area lately, but are still opposing on basis that Obi has history of being a good editor. Actually, I can understand where they’re coming . While I’m relatively new here, I’ve crossed paths with Obi enough to find him a reasonable editor in past, so was surprised by what he’s been doing in the topic area of violence against men/violence against women. I’m having trouble voting on this because while I think something needs to be done, I think topic ban might be too extreme and something like 1RR restriction may actually be more reasonable. Also, I’m not sure the restriction should apply as broadly as written above. For example, gender discrimination seems broader than necessary, the disruption seems pretty much isolated to violence against men/violence against women from what I’ve seen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see this was closed while I was commenting on it, so I suppose deciding how to vote is no longer an issue. I would like to ask the closing admin what Obi "has been put on notice" means exactly. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks unlikely to pass, which is a terrible shame, as the nuance of what this user and a handful of like-minded others have been doing over the past year is difficult to grasp. This is a subtle agenda of marginalizing women's topics in the Wikipedia. It began last April, continued to the agonizing ordeal to get a woman's bio to be disambiguated to something other than an anachronistic "wife of... X" name (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown, links to 8 move discussions at the top, as well as the Move Reviews), to the equally agonizing discussions to preserve Hillary Rodham Clinton's full name as an article title (9 RMs at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, and again, the Move Review]], as well as their negative impact on articles from YesAllWomen to misandry. Why is there a Gender Gap in this project? Exhibit A, right here. Tarc (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I generally hate quoting diffs of my own comments, let alone after a section has been closed, but I think that my comment on my own talk page to Obi laid out parts of the issue significantly better than my comment here did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I rather think this diff, the cute edit summary, and this continuation of horsebeating after the section was closed is much more telling. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also like to post this dif which lays out Obi's stance concerning male rape and female rape, it may be useful for future ANIs [91] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• As exciting as all this is, maybe you all should consider starting an RfC before you visit ANI to ask admins to wave a baseball bat. Tarc, I'm sympathetic to your arguments, as you may know, and familiar with some of the cases you brought up. I just think that, at this time, an ANI-enforced measure is not the way to go. As for what "put on notice" means--I'm a panda, look it up. I think Obi knows what I means. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to detract from the perspicacity of the learned doctor, but I think "consensus is overwhelmingly against this proposal" would have been a more accurate summation of the discussion that "not even a weak consensus". While Drmies' statement is of course also accurate, the proposal was soundly rejected, in a manner that would make Hakeem Olajuwon envious. The closer's statement should reflect this. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, you know, YMMV. I might well agree with the spirit (or I wouldn't have closed this so quickly) and not cite the letter. But I think the most important thing to observe here is that ANI is here to solve problems and to point out to editors how they can avoid future trouble; I think Obi realizes that there is significant resistance to their means of pursuing whatever the goal is. I haven't heard from Obi, on or off wiki, but they're smart enough to see that even the very proposal is a serious indication of such resistance, and I hope, I assume, that they're going to act on that--or maybe already are. If an ANI thread can achieve a goal (and let's hope that this one will) without blocks and bans, then we're all better off. I think Dikembe Mutombo would rather see a dunk on the other end than a missed shot followed by a rebound and a fast break and the ensuing need for him to raise his arm and block. So, ANI rejected the proposal but wagged its finger. Thanks Joe, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read some of his comments since, I seriously doubt it will change his editing habits at all --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're an optimist too, huh? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Block and clean up needed now

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

---

I know this isn't WP:AIV (had a report over there long before this one), but 72.181.249.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has tripled their vandalism since being reported, with plenty of pages that need deleted and salted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to @Acroterion: for the block and cleanup. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP on Hyuna-related articles

IP 79.7.156.70 (latest one used) is disrupting many articles by adding unsourced sales, incorrect chart data and arbitrary secondary single release dates, focusing on articles: Hyuna discography, 4Minute discography, Bubble Pop!, Melting (EP), Ice Cream (Hyuna song).

After several warnings, IP has evaded and reposted from the following sites: 79.54.164.27, 79.20.135.173, 79.51.157.11, 94.192.128.66, 94.167.215.248, 79.54.134.86, 79.54.133.178, 82.48.110.230, 79.45.167.222

Please help. The person is getting out of control! Thanks! -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Insulting material on a user page

Special:Diff/614873443 is User:ScotXW calling other editors names on their user page and making the blanket statement that "Wikipedia is for spreading half-knowledge and FUD for half-wits". Per WP:POLEMIC, I've removed the insulting part of it. ScotXW has a history of very constructive editing, but also of using this user page to polemicize against various topics, including other editors.

(The edit that ScotXW refers to actually seems legit at first sight, but I haven't been involved with the GUI widget page at all — I've been following ScotXW's page since I was targeted in a polemic.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope this incivility is an isolated incident and that we can carry on editing the encyclopedia. If ScotXW is just blowing off steam and this is not a pattern of behavior then there is no need for admin action. If this turns out to be an ongoing pattern of uncivil behavior that needs to be prevented then it becomes an admin matter.

Did you try talking to this user on their talk page about this? I don't see it, perhaps I am missing it. That would be the first step. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See the user's talk page, in particular the sections User talk:ScotXW#Your list of "deletion heros", User talk:ScotXW#"Deletion heros", again, User talk:ScotXW#Non-collegial behavior, and this rather uncivil way of pointing out an (actual) flaw in an article. The user has also recently been blocked for edit warring. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Next step: WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 18:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to disrupt RfC

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

---

User:Collect has ignored warnings in the RfC discussion and on the page of an admin regarding his first attempt to impede the RfC Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F, and now has made a second attempt, leaving another comment at the RfC with the edit summary time to hat all of this tendentiousness incarnate

The first attempt was this Basta! and unhat material objected to by the OP -- if you do not like something, ignore it -- hatting simply annoys everyone else

I replied to that here.

Posts on User:Black Kite's talk page were this and this.

The only person being tendentious is Collect, while he accuses me of that conduct violation. That would seem to be more than a simple violation of WP:AGF, verging on harassment of a sort.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC); 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today et seq and Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F et seq. I suggest the sheer volume of posts by a single editor meets the common sense definition of "tendentious". As for "harassment" I suggest the amount of "evidence" that specific editor sought to present at ArbCom which was not evidence of much at all is much more clearly "harassment" indeed. I invite everyone to read that RfC, noting the wording at its start, and the fact that a large number of editors have tried to explain the basic principles of WP:RS there, again and again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(note this makes three separate simultaneous venues for his same discussion now - four if you include ArbCom pages -- which should be quite sufficient indeed for any issues on Wikipedia. Five if you include his Black Kite posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite participating in the discussion at the RS noticeboard, I didn't even know there was an RfC going on elsewhere on the same subject… RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You now know about a multitude of venues -- all reaching the exact same conclusions <g>. Collect (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Your assertion(s) about "form shopping" is incoherent. The issue at hand here is your conduct in relation to attempts to disrupt the RfC. This is not about the content dispute.

@RGloucester: If you check the RS/N thread, there is a notice regarding the RfC that I posted there shortly after starting the RfC, here, on the 20th.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Five locations is easy to see for your iterated complaints about me and about your heilige Krieg for "Russia Today" as an unquestionable "reliable source." Calling a clear post "incoherent" is kind of obvious as a stratagem when using multiple forums about a single editor. Cheers, now kindly stop the harassment when it is clear that many others also demur on your position on "Russia Today". Collect (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you need to be reminded, again, that this notice board relates to your conduct, not the ongoing RS/N thread or RfC pertaining to the Guideline "Identifying reliable sources". You are free to disagree with my positions in the content dispute as much as you like, but you cannot scream about them and level persona attacks at me in an attempt to try and derail or otherwise obstruct the relevant discussion.

The fact that I have raised your conduct on an Arbcom case not related to the present RfC is irrelevant to this thread. this thread is specifically about your conduct at the RfC and on Black Kite's talk page. In addition, the baseless accusations of WP:HARASS and WP:TE you have made here can also be considered as personal attacks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Personal attacks? Who first accused another of tendentious editing here? Oh yeah... it was you.
2. The ANI thread will go anywhere it ends up going. You can't force it to stay on the topic you want it to. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it might help if you could read the diffs before commenting here.

If you were to do so, you would see that Collect has accused me of being tendentious, without grounds, and in doing so has attempted to disrupt the progress of an RfC, which is part of the dispute resolution process here. Moreover, he did that following a query to an admin regarding an initial disruptive comment.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment: "the baseless accusations of WP:HARASS and WP:TE you have made here can also be considered as personal attacks." Here necessarily implying here, in this thread. Therefore, I responded as I saw appropriate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my accidental revert here. DP fixed it JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ubikwit, I'm sorry but I am confused by what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want Collect to get a proverbial slap to the wrist for labelling the RfC as tendentious? Let me ask you if ANI is the appropriate forum for that. I would also be very careful with accusations of harassment without sufficient proof. —Dark 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

He has twice tried to disrupt the progress of an RfC, not just called it tendentious without grounds.

He unhatted material posted to the RfC by Volunteer Marek that was equally disruptive and tried to dismiss the RfC.

Black Kite didn't provide any input regarding the wording of the RfC, with respect to which I made some adjustments. At any rate, the RfC has been moving along, with discussion of relevant essays and proposals for amending the Guideline. Collect's last edit was purely disruptive.

What do I want admins to do? Whatever it takes to prevent him from further disrupting the RfC, and leveling baseless accusations, which amount to making personal attacks. Considering that I raised this at an admins page and that he persists in the same manner shows more than just a pattern, it shows that he thinks he can flaunt the system.

Note that while you seem to be cautioning me for raising the issue of possible harassment, on this thread Collect has twice accused me of harassing him, once for presenting evidence at Arbcom, which is a ludicrous accusation, and second for participating in discussions related to a source at RS/N and the RfC I started.

To me that seems like a clear attempt to intimidate me in order to eliminate the competition from a content dispute he fears he is going to lose.

Meanwhile, not only has he persisted in attempting to disrupt the RfC and belittle the effort vis-a-vis the Guideline, he has leveled the ludicrous accusation of forum shopping here in this thread with respect to completely unrelated matters. Nothing of which could be further from the truth than forum shopping. How many baseless accusations--which are tantamount to personal attacks,--does it take to be considered harassment? The top of WP:HARASS states

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

10 posts on this topic here, 30 at RS/N, 44 at talk RS, 8 at an ArbCom proposed decision, over 140 at the ArbCom evidence and workshop pages (all about guess which editor?), attacks on me at The Shock Doctrine in 13 posts, 5 posts about me at User Talk:Black Kite, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairp/Archive where the editor goes on a blatant fishing expedition at SPI, and his beautiful interpretation of civility at [92] where he posts Fuck off! to another editor, ad nauseum. Cheers. - but making well over two hundred edits attacking a single editor would seem to be in Guinness territory in less than a month in multiple venues. I suspect "tendentious" is a mild term for such behaviour. And I did not go back over a month for these counts - I suspect he is actually over four hundred edits about me by now over all. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

From the above rant, it will be evident that Collect is evading the issue regarding the complaint about his conduct on a specific thread, attempting to divert it to encompass numerous venues in which we have interacted--attacking the messenger, as it were.

As he points out, I filed evidence against him at the American Politics Arbcom case, but the decision took a minimal tact there. Needless to say, my evidence was valid, not something that resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG. Collects seems to be implying that Arbcom got it wrong by not sanctioning me for posting evidence against him. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling Collect's comment a "rant" is hardly correct - or productive. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is not correct about it? He accuses me in that thread of "attacking him" repeatedly, which is nonsense, and emotionally out of control.

I take it that you are not an admin, and am curious as to the motivation for your participation here, as your comments are all off the mark and serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: Now that I've checked your history, I see that you are an SPA, and that your comments on this thread are your first on any noticeboard. I don't mean not to WP:AGF, but aside from the fact that you didn't even read the diffs upon which this thread is based, your comments belie the fact that you have little knowledge of policy.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Did you even look at his contribution history? RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but maybe the link was wrong. I saw this, all about Dr. Who. But then I tried another approach and found other contributions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do have my contributions linked in my signature, so they shouldn't be too hard to find. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ubikwit: I usually stay out of the discusions on ANI, but this was a bit too much. I can't assume good faith when I read Ubikwit's claim that G S Palmer is an SPA. A quick check of their edit count shows 6,487 edits on 2,717 unique pages, and considering how long Ubikwit has been around he/she ought to know where to check things like that. I see Ubikwit's claim as just an attempt to smear G S Palmer, and make them appear less trustworthy, which combined with Ubikwit's clear WP:OWN behaviour on a number of articles ought to result in some form of sanction, such as a week or two of forced leave from WP. Thomas.W ^talk 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I admitted the mistake and imediately struck the comment, so what is your problem?

I not that I have never interacted with you on Wikipedia before, so what is the basis of your baseless accusation about me owning articles?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that only one admin has chimed in here, Black Kite has abstained from commenting, even though he has commented on other threads, and the two non-admins commenting have an obvious anti-Ubikwit bias.

This is the second time you've made a comment about non-admins posting here. While this is a forum to ask for admin action, it is decidedly not the case that only admins are welcome to contribute.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I'm aware of that, thank you. The point I wanted to make was that I have been caused to reply to random hostile comments by two non-admins, one of whom didn't read the diffs upon which the dispute is based and the other who baseless accused me of WP:OWN from out of the blue with zero context, and no prior interaction history with me. Meanwhile, no admins were intervening to keep the discussion topic, or to call on Collect to answer the for his purely disruptive comments at the RfC.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You have just made a baseless accusation against me regarding owning articles, and that is a personal attack. I have not been accused of that to date.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, and I'm involved at the RS noticeboard. Despite this, I can certainly give you a little advice: this type of combative behaviour isn't going to get you anywhere at ANI. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The conduct that is supposed to be under examination here first and foremost is that of Collect's. Thus far, there has been unquestioned toleration of Collect's evasive counterattacks made instead of a response, and two editors with whom I have never interacted before have leveled accusations without assuming good faith, with one resorting to a blatant personal attack.

I beg to differ as to the characterization of my behavior, though I would have to agree that some of the comments here have been inflammatory.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've learned, in my own experience at ANI, that when one brings a matter here, one has to be prepared for one's own behaviour to be examined just as much as the party that one requests to be examined. Of course, this is necessary, because how else could a fair review be had? The whole purpose of this board is so that editors that are third parties can examine the behaviour of those involved in a dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a given. I've been here enough times to now that.

What you seem to be missing is that the scope of the dispute relates to behavior on a single thread. Collect has not responded to that at all, but attempted to obfuscate the issue by bringing in other matters, trying to expand the scope and introduce unrelated issues from other forums, such as my introducing evidence against him at Arbcom.

If you haven't examined the RfC, I suggest that you take a look. Since you are familiar with the RS/N thread, some things should be clear.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have got a lot of things wrong, Ubikwit. So I suggest you start by taking a good look at the top of this page, where you will find this: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.", meaning that non-admins are free to join the discussions here, whether you like it or not. And when you're done with that I suggest you click on this link: WP:BOOMERANG (a page that you have linked to in this thread but obviously haven't read), where you will find this: "There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.". Meaning that comments about your behaviour on WP are as on topic in this thread as comments about Collect's behaviour. Thomas.W ^talk 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be taking that quote out of context. The context is

There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves.

In other words, the incident means the scope of the dispute. I don't have any qualms about my conduct related to the incident that is the subject of this report being subjected to scrutiny.

The incident relates to a clear attempt to disrupt an RfC by asking if someone would "hat the entire discussion, please".

In that regard, there is this Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs, which I gather is policy.

Collect's initial remark in that thread (linked to above), met with a warning from me, was followed by the above request and assertion that "this is now reaching the point where "tendentious" is an understatement". The request for someone to hat the entire discussion seems like a flagrant violation of the RfC policy, and flaunted the warning. It's cut and dry case of Collect trying to interfere with an RfC in order to win a content dispute. The fact that an RfC is part of the dispute resolution process, which seems to exacerbate the tendentiousness. If your are trying to resolve a dispute and someone disrupts that process, that disruptive conduct clearly falls under the category of battleground behavior.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. Any editor who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor the original complaint is about. The ANI archive is full of threads/complaints where the original poster was the one who got sanctioned, and not the user the OP filed a complaint against. And the same goes for all other noticeboards (particularly WP:AN3, the edit-warring noticeboard). So don't file a complaint unless you're prepared to have your own actions looked at too. Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your entitled to your interpretation of that text, and I don't intend to argue with you.

If you have anything constructive to say, please do; however, I trust that you won't make any further baseless accusations against me.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. The actions of OPs are certainly liable to be examined, hence the existence of WP:BOOMERANG. The difs above seem to show more problematic behavior of Ubikwit and not "disruption of an RfC" by another editor. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you I have had interaction with on WP before, so why don't you be a little more specific about the "problematic behavior". What conduct violations are you implying that I committed as evidenced in the above diffs to which you refer. Which diffs? What conduct?

I'll simply disagree without you about the disruption of the RfC.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since subtlety appears to not have worked, let's be a little more blunt. When multiple editors have told you that your behaviour is combative and you ignore their comments, dismissing them as bad faith and having hidden agenda, then the problem does not lie on them. When noone else has complained about Collect's comments other than yourself (even though the comments themselves have been seen by multiple people), then it is extremely likely that there is nothing wrong with the comments. Regarding the RfC, I can certainly see based solely on your comments on this thread, how the RfC may be perceived as tendentious. You posit that Collect's actions in the RfC was battleground behaviour which is ironic given the nature of your own comments on this issue. I would suggest that you drop this, before you dig yourself a deeper hole. —Dark 17:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Behavior of 50.128.184.140

50.128.184.140 "injected humor" into an article. When warned by another user, he lectured them and added OR to said article. I complained previously to 50.128.184.140 about his behavior, and he dismissed my complaints, so I see no value in discussing the matter with him first. (I'll notify him immediately, of course.) -- UKoch (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a run-of-the-mill vandal - revert, warn, report (at WP:AIV). GiantSnowman 20:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some 3 1/2 hours ago. His case just sits there because nobody there at the moment seems to know what to do with this IP-user. - Takeaway (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You issued a final warning too soon. He's not editing at the moment so not causing a problem. If he re-appears let us know. GiantSnowman 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I issued a final warning because that was the logical thing to do after the previous final warning he had gotten for June. And he did go on editing after that, although not vandalism, but without references, probably OR. This has been reverted in the meantime by user:Canterbury Tail - Takeaway (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The ping-pongish way IP trolls are [not] dealt with here sometimes reminds me of this exchange from Duck Soup:

Groucho: And now, members of the cabinet... we'll take up old business.

Cabinet Member: I wish to discuss the tariff.

Groucho: Sit down, that's new business.

Groucho: No old business? Very well... we'll take up new business.

Cabinet Member: Now, about that tariff...

Groucho: Too late, that's old business already. Sit down.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Cabinet Member: Gentlemen, gentlemen. Enough of this. How about taking up the tax?

Firefly: How about taking up the carpet?

Member: I still insist we take up the tax!

Firefly: [to his secretary] He's right—you've got to take up the tacks before you take up the carpet.

BMK (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not a rapidly changing IP address. In this edit of 22 June, the IP says he's BruceDavidWilner. Six days later, the IP address adds a link to a page that Bruce creates eight minutes later. Since the IP's declaring who he is, this isn't improper sockpuppetry, but it demonstrates that the IP doesn't change rapidly. For this reason, we ought to treat the IP address like a registered username instead of declining action because a report is stale. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with this IP user is that they don't give any sources for their edits. The vandalism warnings mainly come from them adding unwarranted "humour" into Wikipedia articles. - Takeaway (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Destruction

Nominations withdrawn, all done here, nothing more to see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone is demanding to delete **every** elelmtn article. A user is asking to delete the hydrogen box. Please fix and shut down the discussion before we lose all that information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.34.179 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Some more information would be beneficial, a diff of a revision or a talk page name. Amortias (T)(C) 19:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently this is User:Ricky81682, hes taken the templated to WP:TFD so this probably doesnt need anything doing here as it will be dealt with over there. Amortias (T)(C) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Interesting. I'd guess the issue is Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Infobox_hydrogen or Template:Infobox hydrogen although given the way the discussion is going, the anon has little to worry about from me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614806482 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614807044 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614808289 Ricky81682 has been busy nominating everything imaginable for deletion. It looks like he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I did a quick check and found that he was nomming dozens of untouched userspacedrafts for MFD ... some of which had not been touched since 2009. Not sure that's either pointy or disruptive the panda ₯’ 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer people to AGF but it's Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 Panda. I'm not sure how three comments from the same discussion constitute an issue but I seem to have struck quite a nerve when I entered into the chemistry templates in contrast to other policy-related nominations. If asked, I'd say that my nominations here, here, here, here, and here amongst others show my policy view that WP:T3 and Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines discourage the use of hiding article content via templates. Excluding the chemistry element templates wherein asking that the infoboxes be put in the articles themselves, like *every* other article I can think of, leads to a series of personal attacks and accusations, I think my record stands for itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I think Panda was assuming good faith. The way I see their comment is that they don't think you were being pointy or disruptive. However, correct me if I'm wrong. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was unclear. Panda was assume good faith, I know, just providing context. I think this says otherwise as to other editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) How about doing something useful instead of being massively disruptive? Nobody cares what you think, you're wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.34.179 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Alright, I've had enough of this. I'll withdraw both nominations. You all win. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chaurasia

• Deepak Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:98.247.122.221 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP editor has repeatedly added material to this article that violates WP:BLP, namely poorly-sourced accusations of wrongdoing. Here's the latest diff[93]. The editor was blocked twice for making these edits and has come back after the blocks to make the exact same changes. The editor has not responded to posts on either his talk page or on the article talk page. Admin assistance is requested. GabrielF (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's more than one IP throwing BLP-violating material on the article. I see no fewer than 7 IPs on that page with edits getting reverted since February. Might be time for semi protection? It's pretty slow-moving though; protection of less than a month seems like it wouldn't prevent much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are reliable sources it seems. I rewrote it here to accurately reflect what the text says (WP:UNDUE is another problem though). I hope that's acceptable. Between a political party and a guru, I'm not particuarly surprised but I don't think protection is necessary, just a reminder that the anonymous users needs to be very specific about what has happened if they want to include allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please edit this to avoid close paraphrasing? The source says: "The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on Monday filed a defamation case against India News editor-in-chief Deepak Chaurasia and two others, alleging that they conducted a fake sting operation to harm the reputation of the party." Your text: "In November 2013, the Aam Aadmi Party national secretary filed a defamation claim again Chaurasia alleging that they conducted a fake sting operation to harm the party's reputation." Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue this on the page itself. I fleshed out more details from the Aam Aadmi Party page so it should be less paraphrased. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Given the apparently extensive history of prior problems (four separate incidents of semiprotection during the last 12 months) I have indef-semiprotected the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing at the Laci Green-article

• Laci Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Laci Green -article is heavily edited by several WP:SPA’s. Ms Green once said something that is perceived as offensive by some transgenders, and now it appears that those who feel insulted are busy with WP:POV-pushing. These SPA’s are: User:Sveltewallet, User:Tjmarquesha, User:Jsbsocbsnald, User:Feminismrox566 and User:Lighthousemania. I do not think that is right. Should we semi-protect the page? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can hear some rather loud quacking GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?

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

---

I'm a fairly new editor and I've never written one of these before. I hope I'm in the right place and am doing "diffs" correctly.

I began work on an incomplete article [[94]] that contained lots of errors, private opinions, and more than a few questionable references. I edited this and an associated article for weeks (all my edits: [[95]] ), when all of a sudden, much of my material, all referenced to two of the primary academic reference books used for the articles, was removed [[96]]. Then, the related article that I had also updated saw it's material removed as well.[[97]].

My formatting was called "shitty" in the summary line [[98]], I was told of a scholarly consensus that didn't exist [[99]], and I was informed that "this isn't the place for people to learn how to edit". [[100]]. My first contact on the talk page was not very... welcoming [[101]]. On my second contact, I was accused of being dishonest.[[102]]

Apparently I've stumbled into an article with a long list of issues. The subject (Shakespeare's authorship) really doesn't engage me, but the history of the debate I find fascinating, and I actually own two of the most oft used reference books on the subject. I tried several times to rewrite some offending sentences, [[103]], [[104]], and everything was deleted. No one even offered a rewrite - of any kind. Only when I demanded a reference for the words "scholarly consensus", were these two words removed - but then they were replaced with a flat out misstatement, and an opinion being stated as a fact.[[105]].

After all this, now these editors want to "talk", and are laying down mountains of extraneous text, all the while, ignoring the questions I ask. They have yet to change one additional word to answer these issues.

I have disengaged from most editing, and am here to find out if anything can be done. Presently, the two articles, [[106]] and [[107]], begin with with errors or opinions. The leads don't reflect the articles, the notes and references are embarrassing, and new editors are bullied off or told they shouldn't be editing. What is done in situations like this?

PS - while I was writing this, I see another of my contributions was removed because the academic reference book "is wrong".[[108]]. With this kind of reasoning, I don't know where to start.

The editors behind these actions are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Reedy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nishidani

Submitted by FatGuySeven (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• This topic (Shakespeare authorship question) was the subject of arbitration, see WP:ARBSAQ. When edits are reverted, the procedure is to discuss the issues on the talk page, and to stay focused on the discussion. Particularly when articles have been stable for some time, patience is needed if changes are disputed. As I mentioned here, you have been subjected to some unpleasantness, but it's pretty minor. The problem appears to me that you are trying to do too much in too short a time. In just over the month since you started editing, there are disagreements at History of the Shakespeare authorship question and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates and Shakespeare's religion and Shakespeare authorship question. I suggest focusing on one issue at a time, and if that fails, try WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to notify those editors that you've opened this ANI thread. There's a template you can use; look at the top of the page (I'm sorry I don't have input on the issue itself yet, but that's a step you're required to take when you open an ANI report.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Purplewowies, I was doing that right after I filed. It took about 20 minutes cuz I kept getting interrupted. But it's done. FatGuySeven (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of complaints are familiar to anybody with even a slight acquaintance with this area of Wikipedia, as they seem happen on a regular basis. I'm sure any uninvolved admin who looks over the relevant mainspace histories and talk pages will see what's going on and that FG7 is giving about 30% of the story, so I'll refrain from making this any longer and more tedious than it already is unless you have any specific questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But Johnuniq, the articles you mentioned were all reverted by the same editor. I discussed above how many of my contributions, in several articles, were being removed. Also, since you have been participating on the talk pages and on the article, shouldn't I wonder about your motives a little? 😏 No disrespect, as you have been helpful there, but you have also been questioning↓ me on the talk page, right? You must see that those discussions are going nowhere. The offending editor gave me the link to Dispute Resolution, so here I am. FatGuySeven (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not "dispute resolution", content disputes are not handled here, only behavioral problems. What behavioral problems you've alluded to do not seem serious enough to get an admin involved, so if you are unable to reach an agreement with other editors on the articles' talk page, you should head to WP:DR, where content disputes are dealt with -- but you should definitely continue to try and resolve the issues on the talk pages first. BMK (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be a behavioural problem when, in the discussion, the new editor keeps making variations on one or two basic ideas which have been responded to in depth by several experienced editors, asserting that he is being bitten while simply talking past the specific arguments given against his assumptions. This has happened several times already, as a glance at the talk pages will show. It happens to be a well-known characteristic of a school of unorthodox 'thinkers' on the issue. Perhaps that is a coincidence, but I see no evidence that the replies given to queries are understood or even taken seriously. I would add that Shakespeare scholars almost never write 'it's' for 'its' (saw it's material).Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Beyond My Ken, I have moved the content dispute to the appropriate notice board. And I will continue talking, though I continue to be rebuffed and no compromises have been offered. Thank you. FatGuySeven (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Probable troll account

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

First edit is this bit of vandalism at "Skeleton". A later edit would appear to be in good-faith (if a bit misguided) except for prior obsession with skeleton-related vandalism, and, of course, his username, UltraTrollMan. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User name reported at WP:UAA. The actual trolling is a separate issue, because the editor could resolve the problem with the name by changing the user name and continuing the trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Long-term unsourced additions by an IP 94.193.131.142

Can someone please have a word with / block this guy. 94.193.131.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is bulk adding / deleting / changing minor information about a series of Royal Navy ships - mostly to do with their service history. It looks as if they're naval themselves (they're posting from a town where nearly everyone is naval or so connected) and there is no reason to doubt their GF or particularly their accuracy. However they're also doing it without any attempt at sourcing or citation. Despite many attempts to encourage them to discuss this, they remain silent through talk: I regret escalating this, and I think their changes are probably correct, but we do have policies on citation and a culture of discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. They've been blocked in the past and there's both a bunch of warnings on their page and a spate of recent edits in spite of the same. I'd generally prefer that we let editors add material in good faith and source as we go along, but the volume is a little much to handle. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vnisanian2001

• Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was recently released from block for a period of 3 months under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The user continues to make edits that do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; the user fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. There have been three WP:ANI (1, 2, & 3) filed against the user in the past 7 months. Additionally, concerns about WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CONCENSUS have been brought forth to the user's attention, to which the user has not responded. The user has been blocked twice before and warned that continuing the same pattern of behavior after release from the most-recent block would "likely lead to an indefinite block".

Below are additional edits made by the user following the recent release of the block that continue to follow the same pattern of behavior:

• Eight Is Enough: Revision as of 14:28, June 25, 2014—User added filming date of "February 23-March 4, 1977", but the reference linked in the user's edit does not provide WP:V of this information. Similar edit to same article adds a filming date of "February 08-17, 1978" and linked a call sheet for taping, but the call sheet is dated "2/9/78" and does not reference tapings on other days. Third and fourth edits add unreferenced taping dates each time.
• Dog Eat Dog (1964 film): Revision as of 09:33, June 24, 2014—User added voice actor of Dan Sturkie & voice actress of Carolyn De Fonseca associated with roles played by other actors, and did not include a reference for either. Article for Carolyn De Fonseca mentions this film, but mentions of her work on Dog Eat Dog are not referenced. Even taking into account WP:CITEIMDB, the film is not listed on De Fonseca's page there, either. Similar edits to The Great Alligator River and Torso (1973 film) follow the same pattern of adding an unreferenced voice actress to a different actress portraying the character in the film.

AldezD (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment—User's edit to my talk page following notification of ANI—in which the user argues WP:OTHERSTUFF and does not address the WP:V/WP:REF issues here—is further evidence this user fails to meet WP:COMPETENCE. User then blanked my talk page following multiple individual edits. AldezD (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Given the user name it is possible to surmise the poster is young and not yet ready to edit collaboratively GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Clearly a WP:CIR issue, especially in view of the recent childish edits to AldezD's page. As you say, GimliDotNet, the user may not be ready to edit collaboraatively yet, or altogether ready at this time to edit an encyclopedia. Considering the block log progression, I'm afraid the time has come for an indefinite block, just as they were warned would happen by the most recent blocking admin. Of course if there should a reasonable unblock request, I'd be happy to see the user unblocked. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others

In the page Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 and other associated venues, the Wikipedia administrator Kww and other users, notably Hasteur and Werieth, are going way over the line as far as BLP goes, making very serious allegations of criminal activity by a living person - the owner of the domain archive.is. As far as I can tell reading all the back story, the only proven fact is that User:Rotlink operated a bot on Wikipedia without prior approval of WP:BAG, and Rotlink may or may not be the owner of the domain archive.is (we only have their posts on Wikipedia to back that up). Everything else being said by these users about the domain owners supposed subsequent operation of illegal botnets to spam Wikipedia, and their supposed unethical business practices in general, is based on nothing but supposition it seems to me (they've been asked many times by others for some sort of actual evidential proof to link the various actions of the accounts/IPs back to the person being accused, but none is forthcoming). Even though someone there has already made the quite salient point that if you wanted to completely discredit a competitor, this would have been a great way to do it, they persist. If there is a more serious way to violate BLP than this, I'd like to know it. Even if you don't care about the domain owner, then for their own protection I suggest you tell this admin and these other users to cease and desist in making these sort of defamatory accusations about living people on Wikipedia, lest they receive an instruction with the same wording from someone acting on their behalf. Alternatively, perhaps they can be advised that if they feel this strongly about this persons alleged illegal activity, the correct course of action is to contact the authorities, or the WMF (it is after all their systems that are the alleged target of this illegal activity), rather than publicly accusing the person using Wikipedia. Krakatoa89 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is this anything other than forum shopping? The RFC is up and people are discussing the pros/cons of removing archive.is links, make claims like this there. I don't see an urgent need for admin action. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is a report of serious BLP violations, it's got nothing to do with the RFC except for the fact that's where/why they are occurring. Why I would have to report them there rather than at the administrator's noticeboard is beyond me, as is the idea that they don't warrant any action. Surely you can't get a more blatant violation of BLP than accusing someone of a crime without evidence? You did read the page, right? "the owner of archive.is used an illegal botnet" - Kww, "I charge....Illegal Misuse of Facilities" - Hasteur, "Rotlink is the owner of archive.is....they use illegal bot nets" - Werieth. Krakatoa89 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Or to put it another way, if no action is required, then per the BLP policy, where exactly might I find the verification required for the above statements, given they were written on Wikipedia, and they apply to a living person - or if no such verification exists, on what possible basis does it strictly constitute protected free speech? Krakatoa89 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Rotlink established that they where the owner of archive.is. I dont have the diffs handy where that happened but it did. The fact that Rotlink used a bot net is also obvious. Just take a look at the large number of IPs and their distribution. Other than TOR, which wikipedia blocks the only bot nets known on this scale are those created by malware (aka illegal behavior). Given that these facts have been established its not a BLP issue to call out those facts in an RfC about the site, and the users who promote it. Werieth (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  here it is where Rotlink states that changes are going to happen to archive.is before they are done. Given those facts (s)he either owns the site, or works for it. Werieth (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps (there's a number of other pretty obvious explanations for that, especially if this is an elaborate Joe Job). The only thing missing is the part where you provide the proof for the statement "they use illegal bot nets". Krakatoa89 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Krakatoa89: what is your normal account name? you appear to be socking to post this. Werieth (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• That was exactly my reaction when I saw this post. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Concur. This thread feels rather downy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I see you're aware of the recent Yank Barry case. Given that everything those editors wrote was 100% verified and yet they're still being sued for defamation, what say you about the BLP implications of the allegations being made by Kww/Hasteur/Wereith about the owner of the archive.is domain? Krakatoa89 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• No comment on that. I merely find it suspicious when a new account is created to exclusively comment on a contentious issue. And as I see, you have now been blocked, appropriately I would say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) By the way, I have now notified both Hasteur and Kww of the existence of this thread. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks but in short (and on the go) I say HA! HasteurMobile (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in full compliance with the sock policy - my familiarity with Wikipedia has an entirely legitimate explanation. Something that is perhaps not so true for Werieth, if you get your knowledge from the same place I do. I obviously didn't file this report without doing a bit of research myself on the people (sorry, accounts) involved beforehand. Krakatoa89 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone do me the favor of blocking Krakatoa89 for a violation of WP:ILLEGIT? I'd rather not have to take the "any reasonable admin would have done the same thing" path for something this blatantly obvious as this use of an undisclosed alternate account to edit project space.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. Two quick questions though: 1) Is the Rotlink account tied to a real person, and 2) Does BLP apply to aliases that are not connected to a real life identity?--v/r - TP 23:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There's solid evidence linking it to a real-life name, but I tend not to talk about it directly because of BLP concerns. I would think that the alias issue is a bit of a red herring. The main problem is that we could not allow ourselves to be placed in a position where we couldn't discuss attacks on Wikipedia because discussing the attack would be accusing someone of making the attack. "Not a suicide pact" and similar arguments apply.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Krakatoa89 Since multiple editors have shown how Rotlink is in some role of leadership/control at Archive.is, That Rotlink and his bot (including the avian water fowl like activities of many geographically disjoint IP addresses) were blocked for refusing to follow the rules regarding Bots and consensus. The IP addresses activities are sufficiently similar in their behavior to be considered to be evading the blocks to ensure compliance. That the community came to a consensus decision that Archive.is has conducted several less than reputable activities (including deliberately ignoring the robots.txt and using a distributed botnet to evade Wikipedia's edit rate limits/blocks/banks. I think the case has been thuroughly made that Archive.is/Rotlink aren't eligible for BLP protection because all the accusations are true and backed up by already presented evidence. Now how about you prove the negative: That Rotlink and Archive.is are innocent and therefore are worthy of the protections of WP:BLP. Hasteur (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to go that far. BLP was never designed to prevent editors from making meaningful decisions about linking to resources. We would never retain a link to a copyvio page on the basis that asserting the copyvio (true or not) would represent some sort of defamatory claim. the same is true here. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Coren has blocked Krakatoa89 as a checkuser block without naming the primary account. I'll leave things to his discretion, but if the account this is associated with is one of the users that is attempting to get all the evidence in support of blocking archive.is discounted in the RFC, I think the socking should be taken very seriously.—Kww(talk) 23:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There's little to add, sadly. The account was just clearly part of a line of throwaways that have been created to post a couple polemic statements on some project page without there being a clear master to tie it to. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not saying it's the case here, I do find it highly unusual that a editor with highly specialized knowledge selects us 3 who are the leading proponents for reconfirming the outcome of the first RFC. If I was less willing to assume good faith I'd say that this entire ANI was an attack job or a False flag... Oops, looks like I just gave up the Good faith high ground. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Further Throwaways

Adding BorschtNot [109] as a evading throwaway of Krakatoa89. Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• blocked per NLT. Protonk (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues and personal attacks by POV warrior at Kleargear

Could an admin please look at Kleargear and, especially, Talk:Kleargear? There is a POV warrior there who is intent on smearing not only the controversial corporation but also anyone associated with it. I have rejected several additions from this IP editor, who is currently editing under 71.19.182.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as he does not care at all about reliable sources or neutrality. He has become abusive, and his latest talk page message begins with "Dear retard". He accuses editors who oppose his POV edits of being paid shills, and, in the same post, also refers to a living person as "a criminal" despite no evidence of criminal activity. In the article itself, his edit summaries are borderline BLP violations, and he has attempted many times to insert POV, poorly sourced content to use the article as his own personal soapbox. Keep in mind this is only his most recent activity, and his disruptive edits go back months. In November 2013, a series of edits made by this user to Kleargear had to be revdeleted. His posts back then were even more abusive and POV, and I think this is only the start of his newest campaign against Kleargear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

90% of the article is the "controversy" section about a PR mess. Perhaps it's time to reconsider it as WP:BLP1E? I'll semi-protect it for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I was overruled by a clear consensus back in 2013. I've since tried to keep the article as neutral as possible, given the outrage and one-sided stories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That was at the height of the controversy. I'm certain people now will think with a clearer head. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at that block log. I'm going to go ahead and block him some more because it's obvious we're in for more of the same. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect, you were correct. Seems to have moved to another IP address. I am expecting another series of similar comments in a moment at which point I'll protect the talk page as well. We'll see what they intend to do next. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of issues at Talk:Metamodernism that could use admin attention

The article's talk page is plagued by constant unsubstantiated accusations of COI, quasi-OUTING, and borderline incivility (I see now that passive-aggressive and aggressive-aggressive user page templates are being exchanged). It seems to have drawn a couple separate waves of SPAs and relatively new editors: briefly early in the year, then at the end of May, in the last couple days. Almost all participants maintain an unusual level of aggression on the subject, with sustained vague criticism of the article and editor-based accusations. I strongly suspect sock puppetry is afoot given the kind of arguments, tactics, and intensity of the arguments presented, as well as some of the new users supporting each other on other pages. I'm not bringing this to SPI just yet, though, because I don't have time to pull diffs at the moment. The dispute seems to hinge on a pair of researchers, Vermeulen and van Akker, who have had a prominent place in the article and whose definition of "metamodernism" seems to be [among] the most prominent. The researchers launched a blog, metamodernism.com, and this article has collected a number of references to that blog. Many users have asserted that this article is a place for Vermeulen and van Akker to advertise their blog (something to that effect). I don't know, but I do know that my attempts to keep the discussion focused on content have been failing and I don't have faith that a positive consensus will be reached (positive consensus as opposed to people being driven off Wikipedia). TL;DR - could we get some additional eyeballs at Talk:Metamodernism? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  07:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Dispute seems to be too long as many of the new users are also adding and removing content as Calleguas first removed Shia LaBeouf from the "In Cinema" list of metamodernists. I think article needs to be temporally protected till dispute gets solved. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for a week after seeing A.Minkowiski's request at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: A.Minkowiski closed this thread, but I am opening it back up, as the alleged outing, personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry still deserve discussion. Full protection is a start to improving things at the article, but it's probably not the only thing that needs doing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for re-opening, dispute seems to be calm. But yes, may be there is possibility of sockpuppetry there that needs attention. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So, as an involved editor in this particular dispute, here is the brief history of the argument (though perhaps too out of hand to still be an "argument" at the moment) as I see it: I had removed a large bit of content from the "Metamodernism" page that was either uncited or sourced to metamodernism.com, a blog run by writers Vermeulen and van Akker that in no way passes WP:RS. Another editor (who remained uninvolved once the arguing was initiated) had reverted this and left a message on the talk page asking as to why the information was removed. The first editor to reply was Festal82, who has been extremely vocal in expressing that he believes the article should be using metamodernism.com as a primary source. I initially responded with the rationalization that 1. what I had removed was either unsourced or improperly sourced and 2. the article had been using the blog citations to state the opinions of Vermeulen and van Akker as objective fact. A long debate process began after this, with various other editors coming and going. My most recent bits on the talk page express that, after reading input from several other editors, the article should be put up for AfD as it violates the four main guidelines posted on WP:AfD (notability cannot be established, nor can verifiability of the majority of the sources; as I already pointed out, I do not believe metamodernism.com to be a reliable source, which also seems to violate several WP:NOT policies). Other involved editors have taken similar stances, though most are more willing to compromise that the blog only be used to outline specific examples of what is "metamodernism" as provided by terminology founders Vermeulen and van Akker. Festal82 however has continued being extremely militant in arguing in favor of the notability and reliability of the blog in question, to the point where he is now manufacturing conspiracy theories about other users and edit stalking me. Almost all of his recent replies on the talk page have grossly misrepresented what the other user had posted, both twisting statements from other editors to promote what seems to be an agenda, and picking apart opposing arguments to attempt to reflect extreme hostility from the user posting them. I have not stated this yet, but I strongly believe Festal82 to be either Vermeulen or van Akker (I had however stated my suspicion of the two editing the article). He seems to have a large array of knowledge about the two's beliefs and their history, much more than what was in the page, is on their site, or that I could find while conducting research on the topic (I would like to point out that somewhere around 80% of the Google search results I get for "metamodernism" are on either metamodernism.com or family sites). Now there are a handful of reliable sources that reference "metamodernism" (though none actually establish it in such a way that could support an article), which seem to have been utilized alongside the mm.com ones to employ the WP:SYNTH concept. Festal82 also argued that because Vermeulen and van Akker have some professional collegiate background, their blog should be treated as a reliable source, to which I replied with the argument that a non-reliable site remains non-reliable no matter who the author is, especially in this case in which the blog is a shrine to the two's personal beliefs.

In a nutshell: I believe writers Vermeulen and van Akker are using Wikipedia as a platform to promote a terminology they invented, sourcing only their personal blog, and that Festal82 is one of the two. felt_friend 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to say except that administrators can, and I'm sure will, review the Talk page and see that Felt friend is confusing me with someone else, which is not surprising given that things have been confusing over there for months and this editor only arrived within the last 24 hours. Esmeme (another WP editor whose disagreements with me, and vice versa, can be found all over the metamodernism Talk page) is the editor who has long wanted "Notes on Metamodernism" (NoM) to be the only source cited on the page, and as Rhododendrites can confirm I've been working for many weeks now trying to ensure that many, many other sources are used as citations--in fact, a review of the history of the page will show that I've never added a citation from NoM to the page, and in fact have been the one who's added nearly all of the non-NoM content. As for AfD, Felt friend has made factually incorrect statements repeatedly in support of this position; I know that Felt friend knows this, too, because yesterday Felt friend tried to claim that a search for "metamodern" on Google only brought up "blog posts and tumblr sites," when in fact, as I showed Felt friend, in fact it brings up references in dozens of major U.S. and U.K. media sites (all of which I listed for Felt friend). As for "Notes on Metamodernism," I've consistently--perhaps thirty times--referred to that site as "a non-WP:N blog" in debates with Esmeme, so the claim now that I not only think otherwise but in fact run the site I've disparaged repeatedly in that way is just astounding. In any case, as I've told Felt friend, I'm an American metamodernist; I am not Dutch. That should be no surprise, given that metamodernism is not in fact a fringe movement and there are metamodern scholars like myself on multiple continents. If any of you have ever found yourselves in the creepy situation of having some editor you don't know and have barely interacted with start making wild claims about you that suggest the editor not only has some sort of agenda but also--worse--is repeatedly confusing you with other people, please know that that's the experience I'm having now. And a review of the Talk page will confirm all of this. Thanks to all. Festal82 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say that I have never ever taken the position that "Notes on Metamodernism" should be the only source cited on the page, as Festal82 mistakenly (and repeatedly) asserts. Far from it, as I have consistently sought to add reliable and notable secondary sources to enhance the integrity of the article. The talk page and my edit history shows this. Esmeme (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't held any of the positions Festal claims that I do either, for the record. I've responded to his blatant straw-manning of me over at felt friend's userpage. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Esmeme, I'm willing to let the past lie. If we both want this to be an article that uses a range of sources and citations from both sides of the Atlantic and from major media outlets as well as specialized fora like NoM, we are in agreement and ought not argue further about it. I've added a comment to the Talk page at metamodernism, and while I won't go back and edit it now in light of what I've just said--meaning, I did repeat there a view about your edits that I'm happy to put aside now if we can just move on from all this--I think the upshot is that you, me, and Rhododendrites should jointly ask for the Dumitrescu sentence to be deleted by the administrators, and then allow the page to be locked for a month or so to let things cool down. I've said for months that the danger of our disagreement at metamodernism was that not editing the article carefully now could lead to the entire article being jeopardized down the line, which neither you nor I nor metamodernists around the globe want, and hopefully all of this has simply underscored that the edits I made, however much I know you did not like most of them, were, as I always said, made in an effort to shore up the article against wild attacks upon it of the sort we're now seeing from "inanygivenhole" and "felt_friend." Festal82 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 For context, Felt friend is voicing similar concerns/accusations as a handful of other editors on the page, most vocally at the moment Inanygivenhole. festal82 seems to indeed be the target of a lot of those criticisms and accusations. I've explained Wikipedia policy on the talk page concerning reliable sources, npov, and so on, such that many of these claims/concerns should not still persist, but it doesn't seem to hold interest. I would urge any third parties who want to understand the basis for the content dispute to look to the article talk page and not what happens to be duplicated here. But it's not for the content dispute that I started this thread. Having followed the page for a few weeks now, while I've seen both Festal82 and Esmeme edit warring and engaging in similar kinds of accusations, I nonetheless feel comfortable assuming good faith and believe them both to have the best interest of the article in mind (even if their interests conflict). I have not formed the same opinion of the others involved in the dispute, who I'm not sure are here to build an encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the dispute needs to adopt a different tone IMMEDIATELY. Straw-manning and baseless accusations will not do. This is just an article, and I think it would do well if some editors remembered that. The tone of the previous discussion was unacceptable, and matters quickly got out of hand. I'm glad I woke up to someone bringing this to the community's attention. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving this...

Can we discuss the article objectively for a bit? Sans any potential COIs and SOAPs, we need to come to a conclusion about what to do with this page as soon as possible. Here are the questions that have gone unanswered the past few days:

1. Is the topic even notable?
2. Is there any concrete definition of "metamodernism"
3. Can the metamodernism.com blog be used to exemplify the opinions of those responsible for any notability the terminology may have?

My personal stance is that the topic is, for the time being, not notable enough to warrant an article and thus should be deleted as per reasons 5,6, and 8 of WP:DEL-REASON. There doesn't appear to be a solid definition of "metamodernism", making it more of a buzzword than anything else. And as I've said before, the fact that Vermeulen and van Akker are the publishers of the mm.com blog doesn't automatically make it a reliable source, and the more I look into the two, the less notable I see them as being. felt_friend 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't really for solving content disputes. The reason I brought it here is because of violations of behavioral policies and general dysfunction at the talk page. I don't think starting the same discussion here will help. My hope is that, although it hasn't really happened so far except to protect the page, others will get involved so we can get other voices in the mix. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone might want to take another look at that talkpage. Festal's started throwing out personal attacks. Also, I agree with Rhododenrites, @Felt friend:, you should post that on the talkpage instead. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This has gone past a content dispute. Festal82 has taken to ad hominem attacks, calling editors on the talkpage "snarks", "vandals acting in bad faith", and "sock-puppets". The talk page could use some attention please. Perfect for you (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Need admin intervention at Rajeev Chandrasekhar

Holzman1964, Edityicsin, and 223.176.212.66 have been intent to add problematic content to Rajeev Chandrasekhar -- essentially vandalism, but more specifically problematic re: BLP. Each also uses the same WP:GAME-like tactics in edit summaries, using wiki terminology to continually edit war. I requested pending changes protection yesterday but RPP seems to be underwater right now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mike V took care of it. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page and used revision deletion on the concerning edits. The source provided is too weak to support the claims that were asserted within the article. I'll try my best to keep an eye on the article for a bit. Mike V • Talk 07:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User just not getting the message

See User talk:Doburhoney#Deletion of Jaat - The Story of Revenge. Would someone please consider blocking Doburhoney (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, since I suppose I might be thought involved at this point? He keeps re-creating the articles Rahul Productions and Jaat - The Story of Revenge even though both have been deleted at AfD. Oh, and you might consider salting the articles as well. Deor (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted; salted; 60hr blocked the panda ₯’ 12:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Panda. I've made it through my first two weeks of adminship without blocking anyone, and I'd like to see how long I can keep it up. Deor (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the userfied article (User:Doburhoney/Jaat - The Story of Revenge) might also be a good idea, since it would make recreation under a slightly different name more time consuming. Thomas.W ^talk 12:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, when the film is actually released and/if it gains sufficient notability, then that stub might be a useful starting point. If they recreate again from it, however, I'll indef them ... someone simply has to let me know the panda ₯’ 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that he re-created the Jaat article with the AfD tag in place indicates that he is reposting the articles from off-WP versions or using versions stored elsewhere on the Web (in WP mirrors or the like). I'll try to keep an eye on him as well. Deor (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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 [110], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [111]. 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 [112] 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)

Dysfunction

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

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TheMindCrapAddict block evasion

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

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Profanity Toward an Editor

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

---

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 [[113]] 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 [114] and [115]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Massive reverts at War of currents

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

---

A group of editors:

• Atlantictire
• Petri Krohn
• Binksternet

decided[116] to revert[117] 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"[118]). 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[119], a hidden revert[120], and a revert[121]. My pointing out that there should be some actual rational for such a drastic revert[122] 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[123]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[124] 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[125]. 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)

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)

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)

Off-wiki comments, possible multiple policy infringements

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

---

There 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate editing at Split infinitive by single-purpose account

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

---

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Disruption by User:NiamhBurns10

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

---

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

• Inappropriate talk page messages [126] [127]
• Restoring content to another user's userpage that the owner previously removed [128] [129] [130]
• Inappropriate final warnings [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]
• Inappropriate blanking of others' userpages [138]
• Creating user pages for other users despite warnings not to [139] [140]
• Making strange "rules" on his user talk page including "No blocking me from editing" and "No reporting me" [141] [142]
• Uncollapsing things from users' talk pages after the owner collapsed them [143] [144]
• Inappropriate threats to block people who comment on his conduct on his talk page [145] [146] [147]
• Faking a block notice [148]

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. [149] Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Spam?

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

---

What 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EvergreenFir and Bob's Burgers

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

---

User: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. [150] 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 [151] 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. [152] 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. [153]

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 ([154] 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 [155]). 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 ([156]), getting called a WP:RANDY for it ([157]), 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 ([158] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [159].

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.[160] So I found more secondary sources. Jack deleted one of them without reading it [161][162]. (His summary: "This article doesn't contain that information." My summary: "Yes it does; here are its exact words.") This is not [163] [164], the first [165], second [166] or third [167] time he's done this [168]. 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 [169]; 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: [170]

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: [171] 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. [172][173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179]. 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)

Allegations of admin Bgwhite

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

---

Admin User:Bgwhite accused me of lie and POV editing and restored totally unsourced text in Lesbian Association of India.[180] 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).[181][182] Admin Bgwhite accused me of POV editing, reverted my all edits and restored even unsourced text and clear original research.[183] 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[184] '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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[185] that failed V.[186] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[187] 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."[188] 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[189] where there was no consensus in the first place.[190][191][192] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[193] 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.[194] 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 a warning in red that explains the source is outdated.[195] 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)"[196]

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[197] 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."[198] 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)

Discussion

1st paragraph: It is well explained in my edit summary: "@Roxy the Dog, you didn't explain that "outdated pov view". Please discuss at the Talk Page. I restored it for the discussions | @QuackGuru, WP:POV, why? At the Talk Page you said WP:WEIGHT. Are you suggesting that it's presenting minority view?" After a decent explanation was given at the Talk Page, I agreed with the edit. So what's the problem? Isn't bringing such a single edit to WP:ANI misuse of Wikipedia Noticeboards?

2nd paragraph: As quoted by QuackGuru: "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it...", and indeed it was reverted. So what's the problem?

3rd paragraph: That's a false accusation, and I think a lot of attention should be given to that indeed. Bringing up such false accusations at WP Noticeboards without any evidence is not tolerable IMHO. Indeed, I have objected no matter who the editor is, as long as there has been reason to. The latest with Middle8, I have objected him with regards to the interpretation of the statistic material reported in the source, as well as his addition of self-calculated "death rates". However, this doesn't undo the significant work that Middle8 has been doing in the article.

4th paragraph: The same false accusation is repeated there. Any evidence to support such a strong claim? None.

What it seems to me is that QuackGuru is misusing the administrative noticeboards to defame other contributors that have disagreed with some of his edits. Taking into account the lengthy disruptive history of QuackGuru himself, I think something needs to be done to make him realize that collaboration with other editors is inevitable in Wikipedia, and that abusing WP's administrative noticeboards is certainly not tolerable. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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... [199]. 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/Archives/2017/February#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 ([200]) 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[201] 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 [202] [203] 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"[204] --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)" [205]. 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.[206] [207] --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 {{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.[208] 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)

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

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

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

---

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)

Danks. I'da dunnit meself but I dunno duh details. EEng (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Speedy deleting files at AFD

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)

I have speedy deleted files at AFD at least once per G10 and at least once per G7. I suspect that a hoax or a copyvio could also be spotted at AFD. If an admin deletes a file at AFD and someone thinks they may have erred then I would suggest going to them. ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already been to DRV. It was undeleted. But then it was speedied. AGAIN, "the conditions of F8 were not met." I'm not claiming that all speedying of files under deletion discussion is inappropriate. I'm claiming that it's not the norm, and this one was inappropriate.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(I moved this my talk page; forked discussion inappropriate); Hi Elvey, I am not sure where you are going with this. The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_14#File:XTC_energy_drink_-_from_Commons.jpg was closed normally and the bot marks it as closed when deleted. The image on commons is still there and has been decided to be freely licensed, so I had the choice of just deleting the file here ( as the conclusion to the discussion), or deleting as CSD#F8 as there is an identical image on commons. Are you disputing the deletion here ? If the image is deleted on commons it's a simple matter to undelete here and create a rationale. If it remains on commons it seems pointless to keep a local version - Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I was clear when I wrote, "the conditions of F8 were not met." What do you not understand? Yes, the FFD was closed normally. But your deletion action that led to the bot closing it was not normal. Must I copy and paste the conditions of F8 here to get you to address them? Please don't spread discussion around. Disputing? I think the answer is obviously yes, as I said, " I'd like to see it restored and tagged with {{Keep local}}." Yes or no: Do you dispute that what you did was bypass deletion discussion, and immediately delete, even though the conditions of F8 were not met? You deny it as 'pointless', but we have {{Keep local}} for good reason. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

An RfC initiated by a sock of a blocked user

The IP 101.0.** is a self admitted sock [209] of blocked user [210]. 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)

The RfC was closed by Kosh Vorlon. The closure had invoked WP:EVADE in its explanation. However, our blocking policy only allows for reverting edits by individuals evading a block, it does not allow for closing entire discussions when they are begun with block evasion. I also don't see anything at WP:RFC that suggests that an RfC begun by a blocked editor must be closed.

On the other hand, there are other factors to consider here. There is currently an AfD discussion for the article in progress. Having an RfC for an article undergoing AfD is a bad idea. It's very disruptive for an RfC to be ended prematurely in the midst of a discussion if the article is deleted or merged. So the RfC should probably not resume until the AfD concludes (assuming that the article is intact after it's over). Also, one participant in the discussion is also accused of being a sockpuppet. This is all a mess and despite my initial suggestion I think it's best for the RfC to remain closed, and reopened once both of these issues are sorted out, if there are still disputes to settle. -- Atama頭 19:14, 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"[211] 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."[212][213]

Misleading text to the lede about the numbers again.[214][215] 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 ([216] and [217]). 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)

@Mendaliv: regarding your question about DS, you might find this recent discussion of help. I wouldn't bother reading the whole thing, just skip down to Sandstein's comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Middle 8:

1. I agree that my talk page comments[218][219] 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: [220] [221] [222]; plus [223], explained at talk[224][225]
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[226], discussed it; a small edit war ensued in which I did not take part; I saw a critical comment (from Doc James)[227], realized my mistake, undid it[228] and left a note on talk[229]. 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[230][231]; and weird, oblique allusions[232][233] 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)

Copyright violation editing feud with Webdevelopmentfellow

I believe that Webdevelopmentfellow has been copying and pasting content from the web to Love Leadership:The New Way To Lead In A Fear-Based World and How the Poor Can Save Capitalism. I have removed some of it in the page history: [234] [235]. Additionally, he/she has uploaded two images to Wikimedia, which have been deleted for copyright violations.^{C.Fred fixed the problem} I have warned Webdevelopmentfellow and we have discussed the problems. However, he/she continues to add such content. What are the appropriate actions? Piguy101 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's our discussion User talk:Webdevelopmentfellow#Copyright violation is a serious issue. If you need to take any kind of action, please let me know first, I'll see what I can do. Webdevelopmentfellow (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Webdevelopmentfellow, I'd like to point out a few things here. Using quotes in a Wikipedia article is allowed if you properly attribute the original text. Ideally this will include a link to the website where you found the statement in question, or mention the book wherein it was published. However, building an entire article on quotes as you did at Love Leadership:The New Way To Lead In A Fear-Based World is not acceptable. Non-free material must only be used to a limited extent, and apart from that, the review section in your articles makes it look like its only purpose is to promote the book.

When writing an article you should always describe things and facts using your own words instead of copying verbatim content from somewhere else. You should use such sources to back up what you write, but please try to actually write something like, "In his review in the Y magazine, reviewer X noted that the author was brilliant/awful/mediocre, etc. because..." Additionally, all articles must also be balanced. If there are negative reviews, consider mentioning them as well, and if there are only positive reviews you should limit the quotes to the two most significant and sum the rest up in a statement that is cited with a few links to those other reviews. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 3 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: [[236]]

But other uncivil edits include - basically every single post after his third: [[237]]

Warned the editor[[238]] to no avail: He literally continued his attack seconds after my warning.

Sidenote: This edit [[239]] 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 [[240]].... look like the guy's running down his list of available IPs. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see I already made his list now. I think it's time to list it again as a WP:BLP1E situation. There's no long-term significance to this story to me and it's just the toy on one particularly nasty POV-pusher. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've listed the article for deletion. User: 70.71.146.230 should be attacking the AFD next if he's going with the pattern (my talk and the talk page so far). Please keep watch. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk page has been semi-protected (just for a week). I'll try to keep watch on my own talk page but if it continues, short protection may be warranted rather than repeated attacking. Hopefully that calms things down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue again

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

---

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).[241] 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 mandated external review of Herbxue

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)

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

Metamodernism -- ANI thread archived without intervention

What's the next step for this thread that was archived without being resolved? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Lots_of_issues_at_Talk:Metamodernism_that_could_use_admin_attention

It received semi-protection, but none of the problems have been resolved despite the talk page becoming slightly less chaotic. The protection will be lifted tomorrow and I will have very little time over the next several days to engage with it, nevermind put together a competent SPI or COI/NPOV report (i.e. with sufficient diffs).

I'll expand upon what I wrote last time, briefly.

As far as the content dispute: There are writers, academics, and artists currently producing interesting work under the heading "metamodernism." Several of them, it seems, are at the same time working in ways to stake some sort of claim to the term. The degree to which the different voices are included/prioritized in the Wikipedia article seems to be the primary point of contention (at Metamodernism and, to a lesser degree, at the Seth Abramson article).

When I first came to the article, it was primarily Festal82 and Esmeme edit warring and exchanging ad hominems and COI accusations. I wasn't sure then, but while I do now believe neither editor to be completely free of COI, I think it's possible there can be a productive [mediated, likely] compromise between the two that will yield a good, balanced article.

The matter was further complicated by several unusually bellicose additional parties (IPs and a few relatively new registered accounts) joining the discussion -- which was the point at which I posted the initial ANI.

Since then no new users have joined in and the only two of the new voices that remain are Inanygivenhole and Felt friend, to me indistinguishable from one another in tone and content of their edits, who began to edit on the talk page intensely on the same day. Though I haven't watched the discussion closely in the last couple days, my impression from those early exchanges was WP:NOTHERE, with far more interest in, effectively, bullying Festal82 (multiple times [perhaps accidentally] removing his talk page comments in edit conflicts, tagging his talk page comments with a citation needed tag, unwarranted warning/templating, coi accusations, responding critically to every post, some WP:GAME-type tactics, etc.).

I know I'm not including sufficient diffs to make any particular behavioral case, but I wanted to bump this and elaborate a little before protection runs out tomorrow, in the hope it attracts additional eyeballs. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want someone to do. Admins aren't supposed to be super-editors or policemen. If an individual editor is acting inappropriately, the remedy is reporting the user or a user RfC. If there is a significant content dispute (such as whether a source is reliable or not), then WP:RSN is available or WP:DRN ([[see here). If there is a split of opinion on the subject, then include both sides as long as it's not a WP:FRINGE view. The problem I see is the talk page has hundred word long vague arguments as opposed to "is this source reliable"/"what does the source say"/etc. The entire second paragraph here starting with "Van den Akker and Vermeulen defined metamodernism" has zero sources and is the main paragraph of the piece. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, but the problem is it's all of the above so I'm not so sure addressing it on the multiple different noticeboards/venues that apply would solve anything. There's the level of the content dispute, which extends to the reliability of certain sources, but it's not just a matter of finding consensus because all of it is obscured by the constant POV-pushing, possible socking, and personal attacks by nearly all those involved. I'm open to ideas and moving this elsewhere if that's what's appropriate, but I'm not so sure this is the wrong place. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I throw in some pieces to the talk page. Move one by one bit by bit. Frankly, the issue is people doing giant edits and not posting their reasons until challenged and then posting a flood of material in response. I couldn't even tell you what the editors are POV-pushing in a single sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Throwing this out: the largest issue right now deals with the debatable reliability of using a certain webstie as a source, which I've opened a thread at RSN addressing here. felt_friend 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with user "Factchecker_atyourservice"

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

---

It's Wikipedia editors like this guy (evidently, from his contrib history, one of the many, how shall I say....people of a right-ish, libertarian-ish disposition who especially haunt "controversial" article topics) that repel would-be contributors away from trying to help improve articles (especially folks who might actually know something about the topic.) This is in regards to just the Talk page for the 2013 IRS Controversy article. I had made a short note about of how none Tea Party Groups actually ended up getting denied a 501(c)(4) (an IRS tax-exempt certification at the heart of the matter, and one meant for social welfare organizations, and not political ones), when "Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs)" popped by to dismiss both my comment and diss one of my links. Since I don't suffer fools very well, you can probably guess what happened next. These are some somewhat self-explanatory diffs, plus a comment link (note the summary comments): Diff1, Diff2, Comment1, Diff3

And this is all I'm going to "contribute" on the matter. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk)

Too bad WP:BOOMERANG does not work on IPs too well -- your post here is inapt, and not going to serve you well at all. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I only care enough to make as minimal amount an effort to very occasionally point out when articles on "controversial" topics are being gamed into anti-informational garbage, and maybe once in a while calling out one of the editors responsible. I tried being an editor in the past, but ended up spending 99+% of my time dealing with deliberately tendentious editors and their little armies of other likewise ICANTHEARYOU-type editors and an assortment of puppets and belligerent IP users. So pointing out an almost completely overlooked aspect of a politically sensitive article and then calling out an editor for dickish behavior is really all I have the time and energy to do. So this really is my last say on the matter. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk)

This looks like an open and shut case of should never have been brough here in the first place. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. BC? Uhm...oh never mind.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:L'Aquotique community ban

This user has so far created 19 socks [242] and has accused me, and about 4 other users for socking as L'Aquotique in order to try and cover his/her tracks. [243] I feel at this time a community ban is in order as the user seems to have no intention of being here to build an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already banned. They are all socks of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

They don't seem to be linked, these socks are confirmed as linked to L'Aquotique, it is possible though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin please fix the ban discussion link at User:Don't Feed the Zords since the page is locked? title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=455252297#Community_ban_proposal_on_User:Don't_Feed_the_Zords needs to be replaced with title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=455252297#Community_ban_proposal_on_User:Don.27t_Feed_the_Zords for the section link to work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor at Air Serbia

I thought it would be suitable at this stage to seek for admin intervention regarding the behaviour of the IP, which has clearly become disruptive. Despite being told not to add orders in infoboxes the IP keeps defying the messages left at their talk page and the ones left at the article's talk. My three reversions for the article and the comments I left at the article's talk page can be found here. I intended to request page protection but don't think that will work, i.e. it will prevent constructive edits from other IPs.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's disruptive. Never an edit summary nor a talkpage post, I see. Is it me or has this type of editor become more common lately? It's a static IP, so blocking seems better than semiprotection. Blocked for a week. (I'd make it a couple of days, except that they don't edit every day, and I want to make sure the block gets their attention.) Thanks for the report, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Thanks to you, Bishonen. A similar edit pattern led to the current semi protection of Aeroflot, yet the IP was dynamic in this case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of deletions of "as of" today

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

---

An editor is of the view that the phrase "as of" is unacceptable. Just today (though this behavior clearly precedes today) the editor has changed dozens of such references, because of his view. I've tried speaking to the editor here, including pointing to the dictionary definition, but he has simply continued with his practice. I'm at a loss, and the changes are piling up. So I'm bringing the matter here for the attention of others. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped now and we are having a cordial conversation on my talk page. It seems bringing the matter here was slightly premature, if you don't mind me saying so, Epeefleche. UglowT (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "as of" clearly can be used in phrases such as "as of July 4". See here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We even have a template {{as of}} that is "used to mark potentially dated statements", so I'm pretty certain the phrase has a real use on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Review of application of BLP to remove talk page sections

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

---

On the page Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian, there have been people who have been removing sections of the talk (not a single edit made it into the article) while citing them as BLP violations. One of them is an administrator. The diffs of this are here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615657759&oldid=615653485
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615711152&oldid=615700550
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615720831&oldid=615720200

The entirety of the section that's been questioned a potential 'blp vio' is this;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=615716011&oldid=615711152

Additionally, User:Dreadstar (the admin) who has removed them has said that they will block the next person who attempts to readd the section. I sincerely believe the comments are related to a content dispute and per WP:BLPTALK should not be removed as blp violations. The reasoning why I have brought this here instead of further discussion at the talk/BLPN is due to the fact that it's a complicated matter reasoning policy and guideline and administrator action and needs review by other uninvolved admins/experienced users. My main question to be proposed is; Is this reasonable application of BLP and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The removed material makes unfounded, anonymous, unsourced and original research criminal allegations against the article subject. Entirely-unsourced allegations have no relation to any potential content issue on the encyclopedia. The BLP policy was written specifically to address the fact that such things are unacceptable in any fashion on Wikipedia. The administrator in question should be commended for his or her commitment to sanity and human decency. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Not one potential WP:RS was proposed, just rants and unfounded accusations. Precisely what BLP is designed to prevent. Also seems to be another round of the very harassment that the article discusses. Solid and appropriate administrative actions. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Put yourself in the position of Anita Sarkeesian. How would you feel if an anonymous poster could accuse you of criminal behaviour on the sixth most popular website in the world - without giving any source for their accusations? Common decency says we remove those sort of edits and the editors who did the removal should be thanked for their humane concern for the subject's feelings. The "not related to making content choices" clause in WP:BLPTALK is not a get-out clause for retaining such completely unsourced comments, because without a source, nobody can be using them to make content choices for the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's not a complicated matter reasoning policy and guideline and administrator action at all, but a simple matter of following the BLP policy. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

I understand the point you're trying to make, but is there at any point where a removal of a talk page section per BLP would be inappropriate? Such as when they are discussing a source? Does the sourcing need to be exceptional to even make any mention on the talk page of criticism? Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical question. There isn't even an unreliable source provided for the claims in question. It's entirely made-up nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a hypothetical question, but relevant given the context. If IP edits and section be removed for BLP vio if there is no sources, can they merely be removed because it was sourcing to a blog? In what degree is there a line? Note also I'm not contesting the others' thoughts; I'm in the minority here and I acknowledge that it'll probably stay gone. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Blog sources for contentious or defamatory BLP issues? No. There are rare exceptions, but blogs are almost never acceptable as sources anywhere on Wikipedia, much less for potentially defamatory content on living persons. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked via email to delete the intervening edits starting with the initial defamatory comment and ending at Dreadstar's final removal. While there was significant discussion in between, I don't see anything that can't be restated (without defamation) if needed. Given that there was a clear-cut BLP violation, it would meet revision deletion criteria. Acroterion (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Do be bold along with it. Consensus is against me and I'll need to accept that. Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

e.c. This is the wrong forum for this. You raised the original issue here (at ANI) and it seems clear that the actions taken in deleting the material from the talk page were correct. ANI isn't the place to ask further hypothetical BLP questions. Meters (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

So would you mind if I close this then? Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits redacted, we can call this closed. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:Rekkiem

User repeatedly changes the cast of The Inbetweeners 2, removing actual cast members and inserting comical footballing figures. I have told him to stop before and it seems to be a single purpose account. Semi-protecting the page will do nothing as this is not an IP nor a new account. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a vandalism-only account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Good, accounts are easier to block than IPs. Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

Smallbones

User:Smallbones has reverted an article without an edit summary, and when then the editor has raised the revertion on Jimmy's talk page as part of a wider discussion (I think), Smallbones has reverted not only the raising of that issue, but also a post from another editor directly commenting to Smallbones on another editor, claiming that they are socks of a banned editor, and has also reverted an article with the same banned editor sock claim. I can see no report at WP:SPI on this, and it simply appears to be a case of Smallbones removing information from venues that he doesn't particularly like, and making unfounded accusations against others. I concur with Muhammed that his behaviour is not welcoming to new editor on this project. Smallbones needs to be reminded of civility and assuming good faith on this project. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a note, you are both on dangerous grounds of violating Wikipedia's policies of three-revert rules. Please take discussion to talk page, and attempt to settle out the issue, instead of edit-warring. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic that is very advice thank you, I will follow that. I have suggested to User:Smallbones that he leave the article as is, but he has now reverted four times, throwing accusations around at numerous editors. This is not very inviting behaviour for Smallbones to be engaging in, and given he is a long-term editor I think a block might be in order as he has no intention of stopping with the edit warring, discussing issues, or stopping with accusations about people being banned editors. This is disruptive to the project, plain and simple. 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you attempted to discuss the reverts on either the talk page of the article, or their own talk page? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unable to discuss this with User:Smallbones any further because he has told me to stay off his talk page. I fear that he will simply continue to attack myself (or anyone else) on this issue. I am saying this judging on his behaviour on Jimmy's talk page where he talks about other people talking "BS" (which I guess means bullshit?). He does not seem like someone who is open to conversation, only attacking. Should I file a 3RR report on his edit warring on the article? 190.25.100.241 (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not, only because he wasn't issued a warning until the past few moments, from myself. However, his actions seem to be more on the side of uncivil. I say ignore the page, for now, until more guidance can be given by the Administrative team of Wikipedia (a team I can not apart of), as continuing to edit-war with the editor will only provide more incivility on their part, and potentially lead the a block for the both of you. Best of wishes and luck with your future editing here at Wikipedia! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are about 5 one-time anons editing Education in North Korea and Jimmy's talkpage, and User:190... a new SPA quoting policy at me. User:Thekhoser has a very distinctive trolling style and loves to use it at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I revert him on sight and have been doing so for several months now. He's been banned for about 7 years now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones it would appear that you have erred greatly here. The initial editor from Iran who has posted on Jimmy's talk page, clearly mentioned that he was posting from a net cafe in his first post, and then from another (expensive) connection in his follow-up post. You said this follow-up post was from Thekhoser, but no such person exists. You have accused what appears to be a good faith editor of being a banned editor...this Thekhoser person. There is no evidence indicating this. The same thing with the person from Ireland who has responded to your accusation of them being a paid editor; their IP is different, perhaps due to a reconnection. Again, you accused this of being Thekhoser. The only connection between these two different editors is that they both made comments which don't portray you in a good light. And your comments here only further serve to portray yourself poorly, in addition to your blatant edit warring. I think you need to be blocked for disruptive editing and for making a hostile environment for others. 89.180.49.12 (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, I would be very surprised indeed if that was Thekohser. You need to widen your horizon. Andreas JN466 09:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's just trolling. Close and move on. The best trolls are those which make plausible claims that editors can fight over, and it is plausible that Education in North Korea might have a factoid added concerning what Jimmy Wales said. However, the IP is also active on Jimbo's talk, and that rather gives the game away, not to mention that the article talk page has not been edited since November 2013. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Has anyone notified User:Smallbones of this discussion? I am not notifying him, because I am not persuaded that he was wrong. Someone should notify him, or I will NAC this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He was notified, but removed the notice : Diff of User talk:Smallbones -- Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He has commented above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi protect article, no action on editor I think that reverting obvious socks and banned users is justified under WP:3RRNO's #4. Indeed, I think that this ANI was intended to scare Smallbones to not proceed, but I hope he/she will stand firm in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Moderator misusing Wikipedia content for profit.

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

---

Hi, I found the following information about moderator Sitush. <<Malicious lies removed - we don't want to give this stuff publicity — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)>>

The first link dates back to 2011 when this moderator along with his group started providing/moderating false information for monetary profits.

The third and fourth link states claims by various communities that he is misusing his position for moderating/displaying defamatory/false content to general public. Lastly please go through the revision history at the following topics: Jatav Yadav Jat people Although a lot of people objected to the information given by this user, he didn't changed it. Some of the terms used are quite derogatory/defamatory.

Thanks, Jerry Jerrysharma (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm off to bed so will leave to another admin, but after looking around, I can't help but think this is a POV troll that needs a block. I just watched a documentary on Bigfoot that had more credibility than the sources and claims here. In the event I'm missing something and because I can't be here for the fallout, I will let someone else look and pull the trigger if needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would this edit be an example of what you're talking about? Where Sitush removes completely unsourced material and replaces it with sourced material?

This appears to be in a bad-faith attempt to out an editor that's preventing you from using this site to promote your own social beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The links you provided offer ill-informed speculation rather than evidence, and they contradict one another. I am grateful for the work of an outstanding editor like Sitush, who strives to maintain neutrality and reliance on reliable sources in our contentious articles about the castes and ethnic groups of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was actually tempted to just revert this when I saw the links. Instead I notified Sitush, which Jerrysharma failed to do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's quite the boomerang you got there...is that Sitush-specific noticeboard still a thing? You might have better luck with it over there. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen deleted her Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard subpage: I think the problem was that the necessarily clueless complainers took it seriously. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

...wasn't the point to try to stop the community's time from being wasted with these ANI posts? 72.17.156.179 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• I've removed the links to those malicious lies — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated disruption on Jai Prakash Menon

A number of obviously related user accounts and IPs (with most IPs geolating to New Delhi, India) have for a very long time caused disruption on Jai Prakash Menon, a BLP about an Indian IT executive, first repeatedly adding promotional content, as if Wikipedia were a resumé site or social networking site, and then, since December of last year, repeatedly removing a properly sourced controversy involving Menon. The article has been through WP:BLPN ([244]), with no support for removing the content, and has been protected as a result of a report at WP:AN3 ([245]), which prevented edits by IPs and new user accounts, but instead brought out an autoconfirmed SPA, Theamigosinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now causing disruption on the article. Over the past couple of days that user has repeatedly added a BLPPROD-tag to the article, in spite of me equally repeatedly pointing them to WP:BLPPROD ([246]), with quotes and all, in an attempt to make them understand that BLPPROD does not apply since there are plenty of reliable sources in the article. I am now at three reverts today, and don't want to break the 3RR-rule, so I would appreciate some help there. Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some WP:CIR issues. There are more eyes on the article and the user now; the user has been amply warned and hasn't edited since. If they (or by any chance another newly autoconfirmed account) should return to make the same kind of edits, I'm pretty sure they'll be blocked. Please ping me if I miss it, Thomas. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

Will do. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen and Thomas.W

• thank you for the intervention. I have been raising following issues, however Thomas.W is not ready to discuss anything on rational basis
• Article Jai Prakash Menon is factually incorrect. e.g. It states He developed "the model of outsourcing network" used by Bharti and other companies in the industry. However, multiple sources confirm that He developed model for S1 IT outsourcing. REferences below. The author don't even know whether he was in IT function or Network.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/jai-menon-quits-vodafone-heads-back-to-airtel/article1628493.ece http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/global-cio/181177/dr-jai-menon

• WallStreet Journal/Mint is not considered a credible source, but others are single handidly considered a credible source.
• As junior editor in one of the most prestigious news organization globally, We have performed our primary research on the topic and failed to substantiate 2 facts:
• 1. there is no named statement on record confirming the rumors or allegations
• 2. No statement on record by Airtel (even after repeated requests by us, the mails were unanswered)
• 3. No legal law-suit in the court of law.

I requested Thomas.W to provide either of the 3, however he has failed to produce in any forum. However, in turn he is deleting any attempt to factually improve the article, which puts a question mark on his motives.

• Please refer my edits on June 2, 2014 on the article which included sourced content with valid references, however all were deleted by Thomas W. without any written explanation. I tried to reason, however he stopped responding on the talk page.

• Look forward to a rational hearing from all assuming that Wikipedia is not a collection of unanimous news paper articles.

User:theamigosinc9:35, 5 July, 2014 (IST) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You have not at all addressed the issue of your disruptive repeated insertion of the BLPPROD tag when it is clearly inappropriate. There are numerous reliably published sources that specifically mention Menon - they do not say "some unnamed corporate executive". If you dont think the coverage is notable, the proper place is WP:AFD -it is NOT to keep improperly reinserting the inapplicable BLPPROD tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All published reliable sources have 1 thing in common - they are referring statements by anonymous people... The issue which I have raised is who are these people. In our primary research as one of the most respected publication in the world, we have not found any statement on record, or by company or lawsuit.

The insertion of BLPROD tag is attributed to my limited knowledge of wikipedia platform and has no linkage to my intent, what so ever. Kindly refrain steer dicussion away from the main issue as you have writeen a factually incorrect article only basis news paper articles violating the 3 rules of BLP content. User:theamigosinc 7:20 am, 6 June, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is NO violation of those rules in the article, it is well sourced, factual and well balanced. The article has been through WP:BLPN and has been examined by multiple editors, none of whom supports your views. So stop your disruption, including stop posting walls of text with allegations against me all over the place. Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Trolling or just cannot get the point?

At Sexual addiction I got the strange feeling that User:TBliss would be trolling. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTHEAR. Anyway, tried to make him/her as clear as possible what the US medical consensus was in 2013, based upon a quote from DSM-5. We all know (or should know) that DSM-5 states the consensus in US psychiatry, so if there any medical consensus on sexual addiction, it is to be found in DSM-5, since psychiatrists are the MDs who deal with such problems. I compromised the original wording till now I have put a direct quotation from DSM-5. If you ask me, it was fine the first time I have put it in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5 is the US medical consensus, as far as sex addiction is concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Its a bit early for ANI, but I went and tried to explain to him. You are correct on the merits, lets see if he will take my advice and slow down a bit and use the talk page. If not, the burden is really on him to use WP:DRN since he is the one wanting to change the tone of the article in a fairly radical way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize http://pornstudycritiques.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-fractured-fairytale-posing-as-a-review/ was a blog when I cited it, a professional in the field had pointed me to it. Once the issue was pointed out, I didn't cite it again so mellow out. That blog does bundle together many peer-reviewed studies from legitimate sites that support the legitimacy of sex addiction, so I will have to go through and provide those citations directly someday when I have time. As to the DSM-5 quote-- Tgeorgescu's first edit said that the medical consensus disproved the theory of sex addiction - citing the DSM5. The DSM5 doesn't say that at all. It's a totally erroneous and misleading statement. He changed it now to state there wasn't enough peer-reviewed evidence to include it in medical diagnosis. That's a true statement -- very different from his first effort. If anyone is trolling with a manipulative and radical agenda, it's Tgeorgescu. Why don't you explain it to him.TBliss (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • I think enough explaining has been done, now that you realize "Porn Study Critiques.com" is a blog and not a reliable source. The rest is about content which should be discussed on the article talk page, not something for ANI and not something that is decided by admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour of 50.128.184.140, part 2

50.128.184.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please note this user's behaviour has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Behavior of 50.128.184.140.

I came across a dispute between this IP and a number of other editors regarding addition and deletion of sourced material in article content, when the user posted the dispute to the talk page of a noticeboard I have been watching ([247]). I went to check on the dispute and found this edit, in which the IP tried to source a deleted section of an article to an editor's opinion. That's somewhat minor as an isolated incident, but this user has a history (see previous discussion) of adding their "humour" in mainspace, and generally being disruptive. I reverted their edit and posted a level 3 warning on their talk page (because other editors had already posted level 1 & 2 warnings for separate recent incidents).

In response, the editor posted a new section on my talk page insisting that they were right and demanding a response from me in "adult, thoughtfully argued" language (original in all caps). You can see my usual "respect or gtfo" response there if you want.

Following this, the editor seems to have followed a WP:FRS link on my talk page and arrived at Category talk:Antisemitism, where they posted a fairly serious antisemitic and racist diatribe, which I rolled back and will not link to. I have given the user a level 4 warning in response to that. If that's their style of "humour" then we don't need them around.

Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it was a registered account, it would indef blocked for being a VOA. Since it is a static IP, good judgement forces me to limit it to one year, based on their long history of vandalism and trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, an excellent block. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • 50.128.184.140 is User:BruceDavidWilner; he said so himself. I believe you should block that user account as well. -- UKoch (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • We can't just take that at face value as it could be someone trying to joe job a registered editor, however, after doing a great deal of comparison, they do appear to be connected, so I blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, their behavior is identical. Thank you for the block. -- UKoch (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for potential interaction ban or topic ban of some kind; or some kind of intermediate action

I am here to request an interaction ban and potential topic ban between myself and the user Cebr1979. Said-user and I just cannot seem to get along, despite my best efforts to avoid said-user and the pages they edit. However, we both edit articles of soap operas, etc., so a topic ban may be a bit complicated to pull off. But said-user continues to make accusations of Wikihounding and reverting just their edits, while I am merely following topics pinned into my Watchlist, articles I've had a large hand in either editing, maintaining or creating. It has become a complete uncivil situation, despite my best intentions to try and just avoid situations with said-user. Should be noted user was blocked for a period of 48 hours following Personal and harassment, something I feel they are still on-going in. This evening, I edited the pages of Kelly Andrews and Summer Newman, both characters of The Young and the Restless, to make their edits comply with {{Infobox soap character}}, which I noted in my edit summery ([248]) while the second on Summer Newman, I was under the assumption I was merely fixing disruptive edits of another user from the day prior, and was left with ou have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you really feel that strongly, you have to take it to the talk page. No more reverting! and Again, you have been told by a site admin to stop following my edits. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page. No more reverting!.

Following, I was then accused of Wikihounding said editor and that I "continued on with my usual ways of just reverting", which is another assumption, which said-user was advised by an Admin to refrain from making assumptions on their talk page (and here and here) -- user ignored those warnings and posted this, which later resulted in their block. Assumptions continued being made again, and I went to User:DarkFalls, and inquired about it, where I was told to ignore them. The mere simply fact that the pages they choose to edit on are on my Watchlist is not me Wikihounding them, which I am continually accused of doing, as well as other things.

I am requesting the interaction ban for Cebr1979, as I do not wish to be part of the user's postings or editing any longer. As for a topic ban, that one may be a bit more complicated, as we both edit within the soap opera fields, and as a longtime member of the Soap Project (a project I have been with since August 14, 2011 and editing with prior to joining the project), I have had a hand in the re-structuring of several U.S. soap opera articles alongside User:Arre 9, User:Creativity97, and User:SoapFan12, and have several other articles currently in the process of creation/re-creation. I am over feeling like I myself am being personally attacked by said-user concerning any edits I may make, and am now editing in fear of being accused of things I am not doing. I have loved and enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, making it a more resourceful and notable place, especially for soap articles and music-related articles. However, this situation with the user in question has severely diminished my editing desires out of mere fear that my actions are being seen not in good faith, which they always are intended, while mistakes can and probably have been made in the past. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop bringing up former events, they've been dealt with by admins. Your own talk page states, "the past is the past." A site admin told you two days ago to stop following my edits. I never made that accusation, he said it first! He also told you that if you felt strongly about something I edited, you should take it to that article's talk page. You went ahead and reverted two of my edits without going to those article's talk pages. You ignored two things an admin told you to stop doing and continued on as though that conversation never happened. Me saying this to you now is not "making accusations." As I said to you earlier, I'm stating facts. A site admin told you to stop doing something and you didn't listen. Have a good day, livelikemusic. I won't be returning to this conversation either.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I can tell someone likes soap-operas. Howunusual (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The only issue I have with an interaction ban between the two parties is that it would likely be ineffective considering the similar interests of the two - they are bound to edit the same articles and come into conflict in the future. However their interactions in the past has been rather toxic, something must be done before communications deteriorate even further. —Dark 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, something must be done, because no matter what I edit, or edit summary I use, I'm told I'm automatically reverting them and Wikihounding them. I simply cannot edit without the fear of being accused of things I am not doing, especially when said-edits I make are following template guidelines and requirements that have been implemented for years, yet now ignored because I'm "Wikihounding" and "bullying". It feels like a very personal vendetta against myself, and I an interaction ban and potential topic ban may diffuse the situation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is truly considered, as I would not be asking if I did not believe it were the only option, as I'm truly feeling more Wikihounded now than when I originally made this case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:57, 6 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)

The relevant guideline is WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. Category:Attribution templates contains {{CC-notice}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 4 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)

The 'CC-0' claim is irrelevant. As I noted above, the 'posting' under CC-0 to Google Docs was not provably by Russavia, and thus invalid. Russavia's content was under CC-BY-SA, and unless Russavia changes that, not someone you think is him, then it's still under CC-BY-SA.

As far as your dismissal of it as a 'bullshit' copyright claim, that's just disturbing. Go read WP:ATTREQ, which makes it quite clear that reuse of material within Wikipedia without attribution is a copyright violation. TL;DR, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Given that Russavia is socking heavily, and apparently enjoys trolling certain people, it seems quite likely that the CC-0 thing was a deliberate case of screwing with people. Regardless, it was a copyright violation.

As far as my perceived 'complaint', it mas more a request for certain people to take back and take a second look, and my omission of names was deliberate. I find it somewhat disturbing when people are doing things like nominating a banned user's entire userspace for deletion, regardless of if the pages contain usable content or not. In far more cases than this one, I've seen people taking it upon themselves to be the sole 'enforcers' of bans or blocks. The 'exemption' to 3RR for reverting such things should not be a hunting license....there are other editors perfectly capable of also taking action, and the 'hunter' could easily be wrong. In this case, Binksternet was wrong, maybe not about it being a sock, but about it being a copyvio. It was. The world would not have ended if the copyvio notice sat there until someone else looked at it. Instead, he was hitting revert so fast he reverted my edit to his user page. (He later apologized.)

As far as your 'strawman' about a trollfarm, go read WP:BEANS, though it seems unlikely anyhow.

Regarding the block on page creation, Binksternet could easily have contacted an admin, waited for a resolution to the MfD on the draft, or just edited the draft. Instead, as a result of his expressed desire to prevent Russavia from getting 'credit', he screwed up and created even more drama. Another point for my 'request' for people to take a step back above....this is not supposed to be about scoring points or getting 'credit', it's supposed to be about building an encyclopedia, and people are supposed to act responsibly. In the case of Russavia, I think some people, editors and admins, are taking action when they (at least to me) seem to be far too emotionally involved in the whole history. To be perfectly honest, given the 'whole' history of his involvement with Wikipedia, it's starting to make me feel rather uncomfortable to express my opinions even this vaguely. Revent^talk 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually had WP:BEANS in mind when answering you, and dismissed it, because it wasn't just unlikely - anyone who actually did what I suggested would get blocked (or rangeblocked etc) pretty much instantly by pretty much any admin. I brought up the example not as a serious threat, just as a demonstration of why the claim that all copyright violation accusations, even nonsensical ones made by trolls, must be reviewed by a third party is silly. I called it a bullshit copyright claim, because it was a bullshit copyright claim, regardless of the fact that yes, a histmerge should've been performed. If someone repeatedly blanks that a page (which may legitimately have a minor copyright infringement on it) on the grounds that the whole page was a copyright infringement because it was written by the secretary of state without attribution, whether or not there is in fact a minor copyright infringement on the page - the person involved is still making a bullshit copyright claim. Someone who repeatedly blanks a page claiming it's violating a CC0 copyright is literally making a nonsensical copyright claim - one that could not possibly be true. The fact that the page may have in fact included a minor infringement of WP:RUD doesn't make the fact that the sock was being disruptive and inserting a bullshit copyright infrigement claim any less true.

If we sanctioned everyone who violated WP:RUD or the literal letter of the CC-by-SA license for internal copying problems, we'd have very few contributors left. That would certainly include me being sanctioned for unattributed hack/slash copying in my userspace when trying to rewrite a draft that draws on more than one Wikipedia article, as well as almost every other person we have who has contributed any significant amount of collaborative content to Wikipedia. Honestly the day that we start regularly sanctioning editors for internal copying without entirely proper attribution is probably going to be the day when I'll be tempted to go on a massivewheelwar on the IAR grounds that blocking all of our content contributors isn't in the interests of the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User is out of control

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

---

There is no administrative action needed here in a content dispute where neither of the two involved editors were innocent. So wait a few hours to cool down and then use the talk page of the article to discuss your edits in a civil manner. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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

---

It is obviously true that I am not the only editor who has had problems with this user in the past, and recently one editor suggested to Behind my Ken that Wikipedia was not their personal therapy session. I reported an incident a few months ago which was ignored and because of the Administrators inability to do their job this editor is once again making disruptive edits and being uncivil. Most recently this user reverted the Copy Edits of an official Copy Editor who had accepted a request for the page The Rules of the Game to be worked on. Their reason was "generally better before", in other words "I don't like it". This user then proceeded to move the majority of the lead section into a new section of the body of the article and then complained that the section had no sources, as well as making several arbitrary and pointless edits. I could go on but I am certain that the facts speak for themselves. I demand that this user be put on suspension until they are able to conduct themselves in a more rational and reasonable manner. This user has unfortunately left a small mess on the page that I had been editing and had requested the Copy Edit for and is clearly attempting to both block a legitimate Copy Edit and is oh so cleverly attempting to set the page up for an edit war. Again, this user is out of control. Do your own research to see how many incidents their have been that were entirely provoked by this user. It is absolutely ridiculous that editors like this re allowed to conduct themselves in this manner and attempt to own pages by consistently reverting edits based solely on their personal whims. I do not care how many "allies" this editor has or how long this editor has been contributing. The reason I am not going to list a series of links to previous incidents or examples is that that is supposed to be the job of the Admins, please do your job yourselves. And many of these examples have already been brought to peoples attention. The facts speak for themselves. This editor clearly needs a time out until they can act like a grown up.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is an "official copy editor" mean? And how does "I demand that user be put on suspension" work? I do see you trying to create a cloud of doubt around Beyond My Ken by repeatedly talking about his "history", but I'm not sure what that has to do with now. You say "The reason I am not going to list a series of links..." blah blah blah. That isn't how ANI works. You've come here with this rant, presented zero evidence, made a lot of unsubstantiated claims, then demand we "suspend" him....after telling us that last time the admin didn't do their jobs. Then you say "the facts speak for themselves". I must say that you've certainly left an impression here, although it isn't likely the one you were going for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Move to close, nothing to see here, let's all go back to writing articles. Ken's behavior here appears to be irreproachable. Without diffs, my mind is not going to be changed. I don't think this is ripe for WP:BOOMERANG action either. There's obviously a dispute here, but not one within ANI's competence to handle. I would advise you to follow WP:DR as a guide for how to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you prefer that I canvass all of the many, many other Editors that Behind My Ken has had incidents with over the last few months alone? I assure you, this page would be flooded with complaints. I am asking that you Admins, at long last, do your job and deal with this User. I stand by my choice of words and am not going to drop this. I find it hard to believe that you are not already familiar with this User and I resent it if you are going to compel me to list every single example here.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A half-dozen example (supported with diffs) should be sufficient. Probably best not to WP:CANVASS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) D. has twice accused me of trying to "own" the article The Rules of the Game. [249], [250] This last time occurred last night my time, and I pointed out to her the absurdity of her accusing me of trying to own the article hard on the heals of her posting many, many edits to it, and then trying to chase me away by reverting a legitimate edit of mine with the edit summary "Please stop attempting to own this page and let the Copy Editor finish their requested job". If anything, that's ownership-like behavior. I also pointed out to her that, at that time, according to the revision history stats, she had made 237 edits to the article -- which is 37.1% of all edits -- while I had made only 66 edits or 10.3%. Looking at the material added to the article, she had added 56,619 bytes to the article (65.4%), while I had added only 1,528 bytes (a mere 1.7%). (Since then, I've copyedited the article, bring me to 89 edits (13.4%) and 1,743 bytes (1.9%).)

  I have no beef with D. in terms of content, she has added an awful lot of good material to the article in the last couple of months, but it did need to be copyedited, and some of her excess needed to be trimmed, and I've undertaken those tasks. I'm more than willing to discuss any revisions I've made with her at any time on the article talk page, and to work together with her in a cooperative and collegial manner to improve the article, but I'm not willing to allow her to try to browbeat me from editing the article -- which isn't going to happen in any case. BMK (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deoliveirafan, again I would say that making claims without producing (diffs) is considered a personal attack, so either produce diffs or back off. What little looking around I did seems to sync up with what Ken is saying. So produce the diffs, or back away from the claims. It isn't our job to do your homework. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Why does my comment keep getting blocked? Howunusual (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Please don't just sweep this under the rug before I can respond and then block other User's that are potentially agreeing with me. I will indeed begin canvassing since this is a problem that needs to be addressed in a serious, fair manner.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Because you reverted an admin close without a summary, based on the history here that you could have read. If you did check the history at that article, you would see that Ken made two edits after a two week break and in a summary was told "Please stop attempting to own this page and let the Copy Editor finish their requested job)". I would say Ken's comments were in response to someone else trying to WP:OWN the article. At the core, it is a DRN issue, so BBB was right, and it was a mistake to revert him, btw. And Deoliveirafan, I strongly suggest you drop the stick as you have provided no evidence, thus continuing to pound the table is inching you closer and closer to your own "time out". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. There was an "Edit Conflict" so I pasted the bottom text into the the top. I did in fact research the case, which you would know if this hadn't been abruptly archived while I was in the middle of contributing my thoughts, and you are wrong that BMK made two edits. He made a dozen, all without consensus, and accompanied by several rude WP:OWN comments like "Back off...now" . Howunusual (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see diffs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You would have seen a diff, if Bbb23 hadn't deleted it while archiving. It's now on the article Talk page. BMK has now reverted my revert of his "Bold" edit....still without ever using the Talk page. Should I revert his revert? No wonder Deo complained about admins.... Howunusual (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I was also in the process of responding and listing diffs before the discussion was closed. Someone needs to make a decision.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I saw those diffs, even before I saw you present them. The problem here is primarily one of content. Both editors are frustrated, but it hasn't reached a point that anyone needs any action. Directing the editors to use the talk page (which hasn't been used enough) is best, even if they get a little ugly. Editing is ugly sometimes, and admin shouldn't get involved at this stage. Deoliveirafan is not innocent, Ken was blunt as well. "No action" is the best solution, a drawn out fight at ANI is not. A decision has been made: use the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I do not wish to continue this after the discussion has allegedly been closed, but I have been vaguely been accused of "something", please clarify what. How am I not innocent? I requested a CE of this page on May 24th. On July 5th User:Miniapolis agreed to CE and put the appropriate "working" tag under the request. This user had just begun their CE, specifically the lead section, when BMK disruptively reverted ALL of their CE. I simply reverted BMK's revision and asked that BMK not disrupt a CE. On the Copy Edit Requests page it clearly states "When you accept a request, please place the  Working template immediately beneath the request so that other copy editors know not to take it on." How am I not innocent? And please clarify where this discussion can continue.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The "working" template? Now I'm getting what's going on here. You're honestly wondering what you did wrong? When you reverted BMK, did you care to inform him that you had filed a request for copyediting at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Until you just quoted their instructions, I didn't even know what you meant with your "request for copyedit" before, let alone the "Official Copyeditor". How was BMK supposed to know about that from a cryptic edit summary about some Copy Editor doing his job? That edit requests page is just the subpage of one of many voluntary WikiProjects without any official function at all, so how was BMK supposed to know about the upcoming copyedits? How were the administrators reading this thread supposed to know about it when you only wrote about "a request for copyediting"? Which copyediting — anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. And as a result of all this, Miniapolis has now declined the job. So next time you revert someone and come straight to ANI with it, please remember that people might not even know about your past activities and your future intentions for an article. So now that I have done your job of uncovering the backstory of this grand misunderstanding, please continue at the article's talk page. And you might also want to ask Miniapolis to reconsider their involvement. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have no intention of "reconsidering my involvement" because it was BMK who reverted my copyedit of the lead (a couple hours' work) with the vague explanation that it was "generally better before". All Deoliverafan did was to request a copyedit, and IMO it's BMK who's exhibiting ownership behavior in this case. All the best, Miniapolis 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Article needing protection?

There appears to be a person or persons trying to edit the Moms Demand Action article against policy: some vandalism and some whining. Multiple IP addresses are being used.[251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260] Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd for one week, given the disruptive nature of the edits. Next time please use WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Troll needs blocking

99.249.219.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Edit warrior adding unsourced information responded to multiple warnings to stop adding unsourced information with "Care to explain what exactly I've done wrong?" I let him know that that's what the warning messages were for, and cited that and the fact that he added the message to the top of my page as a sign he needs to read instructions more often. His responses was to say stuff about my parents and hypocritically tell me to be more professional, and left another message at the top of my talk page making fun of my religious beliefs.

There is already an edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:99.249.219.4_reported_by_User:50.185.134.48_.28Result:_.29, but someone needs to really get across that his sort of behavior is not acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

IP's currently at 5 reverts, still restoring the same promotional content to Vaporwave. Last block was for 2 weeks. Could use a month or two. Geolocate says it's static. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And blocked via AN3. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A Sock puppet on Alberto Meyer incident (alien_sighting)

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

---

I frequently patrol the new pages section and this morning I saw this article and tagged it for deletion. About 15 minutes later, I looked at the article and it had been deleted and the creator had been blocked as a sock. Well, a few minutes ago, also patrolling the new pages section, I see the article appear again created by a new editor. Can an administrator take a look at it and see if the new account could also be a sock. Thanks. The Newspaper (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like Gogo Dodo took care of it, with a block and a dash of salt. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User harassing another user by mass reverting their edits

Thandi moyo is harassing McGeddon by making mass reverts of their edits, with no edit summaries explaining why. When challenged by me Thandi moyo replied "..I'm showing him how it feels!", offering no other excuse for the reverts. Judging by their talk pages McGeddon, who based on their contributions seems to be an active vandalism fighter here on WP, had reverted one or more edits by Thandi moyo a while back, with Thandi moyo then starting regular mass reverts in retaliation. Thandi has been warned on more than one occasion for it, and has also been blocked for disruption in connection with it, but still continues with his reverts even as I write this. So could someone please put a stop to it? Thomas.W ^talk 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for harassment. Some possible sockpuppetry issues there as well; it might be necessary to silverlock the Conor Mccreedy page again. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In a comment this afternoon Thandi Moyo claimed to "edit under another name now", supposedly because of me. If they're keeping the Moyo account to one side for harassment purposes, that may merit a checkuser. (User:Michael J Palmer is the latest of many SPAs to work on Mccreedy-related articles, with Draft:Protecting African Lions PAL using a logo uploaded by Moyo around the same time.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much 100% certain that Thandi Moyo is a reincarnation of Thandi.Zambo, but Thandi.Zambo stopped editing about two weeks before Thandi Moyo appeared, so technically that's not an abuse of multiple accounts. Not sure about the other names listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty69t, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Moyo has explicitly confirmed that Zambo was an earlier account: "they are both me, I couldn't remember my password for Zambo, which is my maiden name, so i made Moyo, which is my married name", which sounds unconnected to the above revelation that my "trolling" forced them to start using a second account. Michael J Palmer registered a couple of weeks after the Rusty69t SPI so wasn't part of it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editting by User:Nikita-Rodin-2002

This editor is repeatedly removing deletion (including CSD) templates from categories/templates they've created (e.g. [261]), recreating deleted category (Category:Wikipedia:Participants-users of Microsoft Windows operating system), creating categories just for their sandbox (e.g. Category:Cartoons 3D). I'm not sure how much it's a problem of WP:NOTHERE and how much WP:CIR. Looking at their sandbox (User:Nikita-Rodin-2002/Sandbox[262]) it appears that this user does not have the language skill to contribute usefully on this wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Said user also seems to be attempting to rename himself through pagemoving his userpage (there has been no actual account change). I have notified this user as required. The actual name of the account is Никита-Родин-2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It would appear this editor's English comprehension is... limited at best. I'd hit him with {{subst:welcomeen-ru}} except from the user talk page it would appear this editor knows of and has already been indeffed on Russian Wikipedia (with talk page access revoked too). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I left a message in Russian at their talk page let us see how he reacts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to know enough English to be able to read messages left in English on the talk page; he has now recreated the same categories and (malformed) templates for personal use three times, with the latest batch of them created and deleted today. So IMHO an indefinite block for both disruption and lack of competence would be in order. Thomas.W ^talk 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's apparently a response in Russian. Dumping it into Google Translate suggests it's something along the lines of "I want [the categories/template] for my userpage". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would he need a user page if he doesn't know enough English to be able to contribute? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Ymblanter is figuring it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, we are having some progress.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Overly censorious editor

Hi, an editor on Quincy Troupe while making some helpful copyedits, to erase whole sections of content twice to this page. He's clearly an experienced editor so it's somewhat baffling. I already warned him once and he's ready to engage in an edit war it seems. Can someone help?--Aichik (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It does not need admin action at this time. I suggest you both use the talk page and seek further input if you cannot come to an agreement. Chillum 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Anyway, it looks like Bgwhite was just removing some WP:UNSOURCED material. Nothing wrong with that. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the way it reads now with a fourth person's edit, the career section starts with the person's most controversial aspect. Isn't this libelous for an article on a living person? Where are your standards?--Aichik (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the right place to discuss it. Please use each other's talk pages and/or page's talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User64.4.93.100 - wholesale removal of quotations

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

Regrettably this is a repeat of a very recent report which ended in a short block for User:64.4.93.100 for removal of quotations without any thought for the value of the quotes and failing to add the quotes to Wikquote. Any attempt at discussion by other editors just generates aggravation and no sign of any understanding of the issue or any sign of modifying this behaviour to form any sort of consensus. I could go and revert all the edits but that might be construed as edit warring or hounding so maybe this forum can find a more robust solution.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Velella, there is a discussion regarding this at Wikipedia: Village Pump (policy). Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Dennis_Brown#User:_64.4.93.100. Velella is wrong I have added many quotes to Wikiquote but you shouldn't add quotes without sources there. It is also hard for me to add them to Wikiquote because neither here nor there makes it easy for IPs to use sources. It would be a lot easier for the complainers to do it where they think it should be done which isn't often. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

" Well, all I can say is, in the half-dozen or so random cases I briefly looked at, the removals seemed to be proper. Actually, pace Dennis, I personally find it quite hard to imagine any situation in which a bare list of quotations, not embedded in context and discussion and without a clearly documented policy of selection, would be beneficial to an encyclopedia article, so I'd say that as a general rule of thumb their removal is likely to be beneficial....I also don't buy the claim that this should not be done without transferring them to Wikiquote. I can't speak for the anon, but I personally happen to think that Wikiquote is a crap project with 90% crap content and negligible educational value, so if it was me, I would certainly never add anything there. You can't demand that somebody should volunteer to add crap to a heap of crap as a precondition to be allowed to remove crap elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC) ". 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't post this here. You should maybe have made it more apparent that this was just quoting something I said over at the other thread on WP:VPP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• As David pointed out above, this is better handled at VPP, as a fruitful discussion is already ongoing there and there is not clear "violation" of policy to review. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

Coreymiller2016 has made a legal threat on their talk page [263] (possibly aimed at myself) with regards to some reverts I made on an article they claim to be about their husband C-Murder. Amortias (T)(C) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:DOLT. Try explaining sourcing to them before we go straight to a block.--v/r - TP 22:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Too late, Frog already jumped on it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

An outburst of vandalism

Might need a bit of help with an outburst of vandalism to 492d Fighter Squadron, Jahanabad, Pilibhit etc, etc. from the range 78.85.... (Rostelcom). TIA  —SMALLJIM  16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

78.85.247.195, 78.85.80.49 still need blocked. James^x12345 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also 78.85.104.229 James^x12345 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've laid down an inclusive range block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. James^x12345 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew someone could work it out faster than me :) I think that between us we haven't left anything in a vandalised state. Thanks, Jamesx12345 and The Last Arietta.  —SMALLJIM  16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

The vandalism started again a few minutes ago from 78.85.246.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I've reinstated zzuuzz's rangeblock for another 24 hours. Happy for anyone to change it if this is considered to be inappropriate.  —SMALLJIM  19:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: for info.  —SMALLJIM  19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It started again a short while ago, so I've reapplied the rangeblock: 78.85.0.0/16 for another 24 hours. It's looking as if these outbursts may become a regular occurrence. Any opinions on imposing a longer block? Collateral damage? - a quick search suggests there may not be much.  —SMALLJIM  22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal 201.239.30.37

Someone please block Special:Contributions/201.239.30.37. This vandal is just changing dates as vandalism and has not made a single constructive edit (every edit has been reverted). Please block ASAP. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 11:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked for a week, but it's unfortunately a dynamic IP (obviously used by the same person since 20 June, though). Bishonen | talk 12:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

The IP geolocates to Santiago, Chile, and is most probably the latest incarnation of an IP-hopping long-term vandal from there who has tirelessly been doing that kind of vandalism on a large number of articles for years. So it won't be long before he's back again... Thomas.W ^talk 13:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand they're back, as predicted. Now as 190.96.34.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The same geolocation and the same old vandalism, introducing small factual errors in multiple articles... Thomas.W ^talk 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the IP hopping nature of this person I have given a 72 hour block. Sometimes I wonder if 80% of the vandals on Wikipedia are the same 9 people changing IPs. Chillum 18:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. One of the problems with the kind of vandalism this person in Chile, and others, engage in, with small changes of years, weight, displacement and so on, is that most editors who revert them don't issue warnings or report the IP anywhere, so the vandalism can often go on for weeks or even months before being noticed by someone who can stop them. Thomas.W ^talk 18:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. Special:Contributions/190.96.12.66 is the latest IP for this one. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

And now Special:Contributions/190.96.32.194. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Help! I share an IP address with a blocked user

I haven't been on in several days, as I was on vacation and without WiFi access, but when I returned i found a message saying that my IP was blocked at my new workplace. I recently got transferred to a new facility and I cannot edit. Please help!! The Newspaper (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you posted this question here, the you aren't blocked. --Jayron32 00:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try working while you are at work, and edit from home? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:ABK and {{unblock-auto}}. You'll probably have a faster response using the template. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Create an account. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Some kinda assy responses here. If I was still an admin, I'd handle this myself, but it's because of responses like these that I decided that involvement with WP wasn't really worth it. Nice. Sorry, Newspaper. GJC 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gladys j cortez:: I am still uncertain how they can't edit articles but can edit here. It would look like the op is mistaken, if they are auto blocked, we cannot help them on this page, as they need to use the auto block notice to let the admins know the source of the problem. So, as I noted entirely without snark, if they are editing here, they are not blocked. As Mendeliv noted without any snark, they need to use the template and copy the auto block number correctly for any admin to help them. I am not sure why you called me and Mendeliv assy, because there is nothing incorrect in either of our answers. If someone else said something you are unhappy with, use their name, so you are clear who you are talking to. --Jayron32 01:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Not snarky" does not equal "helpful" or even "acceptably concerned".

Confused user: "I need help."

Answer 1: "If you can figure out how to ask a question, that's your answer."

Answer 2: "Template, template, acronym. Jargon jargon. See?"

Answer 3: "You use an IP? No help for you."

You're seeing things as longterm, proficient Wikipedians with a firm grasp of what has happened. The user asking the question is not. None of the answers given are thorough enough to be helpful for a user in that situation.GJC 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

They probably left this message using their own mobile, an internet cafe, home computer after work etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But if an account gets autoblocked on an IP, the autoblock will then migrate to the next place the account tries to login from. Or at least that's my understanding of WP:ABK. I think the only likely possibility is Newspaper's work IP is hardblocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You've mistaken about autoblocks. All an autoblock is - is a block of all of an account's IP addresses for a short period of time. It doesn't migrate or anything like that. The difference between an autoblock and a regular block is that an administrator knows which accounts they are blocking - an administrator has no idea which IP addresses they are blocking. The IPs are blocked automatically by the software.--v/r - TP 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was essentially what's said at WP:ABK#How it works: Account A gets blocked. Account A was using IP B, which gets autoblocked. Account C tries to edit from IP B and gets autoblocked. Account C then tries to edit from IP D: the autoblock prevents this, and then IP D also gets autoblocked. Account E tries to edit from IP D and fails due to the autoblock, and gets autoblocked itself... and so on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well autoblocks expire after 24 hours, if I recall correctly. Newspaper's autoblock might just have happened to expire by the next time he tried to post at home or from his phone. The other possibility is that the IP that was blocked wasn't anon-only. Either way, there's nothing that can be done without more information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

harrasment by mass reverting my edits.

The user Shulinjiang under the ip Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122 has been engaged in mass reverts of my edits. he attempted to remove some sourced content without any discusion on the pages CAIC Z-10 and Kamov earlier and attempted to continue his behaviour of disruptive edits by using multiple ip's to avoid crossing the 3rr. he was already banned for 48 hours for this incident. there is also an ongoing spi case already under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang, however this case is still open. Today under the ip Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122 he has been engaged in a personal attack on my by reverting my edits on multiple pages that i have contributed to over the past few days. despite warnings left on his talk page he has removed the warnings and continued in this behaviour. there are too many diffs to list out here however every single edit this contrib page has been a revert of one of my edits from some page or the other. i have brought this to the administrator intervention against vandalism board, however i was advised by another user that this may not constitute an act of vandalism and that i should bring it to this board instead. thank and regards Pvpoodle (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

the ip was blocked for a different reason (edit warring) whereas this case was started for wikihounding. also the main user account Shulinjiang is still unblocked and as evidenced Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang the user will in all likelihood continue this behavior under a new ip. Pvpoodle (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now blocked Shulinjiang indefinitely for this rant made by the IP. The frequent use of "debunk" makes it clear that this is one and the same person. De728631 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift delivery of justice. i did wonder if i was the only one noticing the improper usage of the word "debunk". boy am i glad i wasnt the only one :) lets hope now that he will leave me alone and not continue his campaign of harassment. thanks again De728631 for your help. Pvpoodle (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Following a request on WP:RFPP, I've semi-protected CAIC Z-10 for ten days. If this user wishes to contest the sourcing, he can be directed to the talk page. If the edit warring persists after the protection expires, feel free to ping me on my talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tom. i hope the page protect will deter him from further attacks. Pvpoodle (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request rollback of Rafting or be given privileges to do so.

Hi, please see the last section at Talk:Rafting - it documents an extended campaign of attrition to try to get advertising into Rafting. Could you please roll back the article to the time stamp requested, and/or give me sufficient privilege to do so myself.

Re my request for privileges: although I may not know as much as I should re wp procedural issues, I do know enough of wp etiquette to not overstep what I should be doing, and I promise to be conservative if I don't know enough re process. fwiw, I am setting up a mediawiki site of my own, and so am motivated to learn more re wp process (because I regard existing wp process as optimal), but by far the main reason for suggesting you might want to grant me enough privilege to do a rollback over several intervening versions is that I have limited time and would prefer not to have to repeatedly ask you for rollbacks (and something tells me that this will be necessary re Rafting).

User:Anthonyhcole has met me and could speak to my bona fides, and/or see my edit history. BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Everybody has the privileges to "roll back" in the manner you ask. You simply go back to that timestamp version of the article; click "edit"; add a space and remove the same space; click Save the panda ₯’ 23:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that you have to add space and then delete it. Just clicking edit, and then saving usually works for me. --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Same here. You can always use Twinkle too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You want to revert the article to this version? I really don't see the difference other than the removed section on whitewater rafting. I mean, if you want to revert to that version you're more than capable of doing so without special tools, but I don't see the spamming you say has been added. I think you've been successful stemming the tide without wholesale reverts to earlier versions. :) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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"[264] and Ten lost tribes[265] 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. [266] 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 [267], 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)

Well, the things people invent!! That article is pure crap manufactured out of WP:SYNTH. All the section covered in notes 5-10 synthesizes original research by googling 'spikenard+Nepal' and 'spikenard+geniza'. That section is nonsense, like writing History of the Egyptians (or of the Sumerians) in Afganistan because lapis lazuli went out from Badakhshan, which however at that time was not Afghanistan, and found its way to Sumer and Egypt. Jeesus, or Yahweh! stone the fucken crows - the stuff that gets stuffed into a project that is supposed to be encyclopedic. I'm not going to read the squabble lit here: but Ubikwit is spot-on in saying some editors there have no understanding of history. And in lieu of that, you get policy waving over p's and q's. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani old chap when the best you can do in a serious discussion is use filth like "pure crap" and "fucken crows" you should wash out your proverbial potty-mouth first before expecting any civilized response. There is also no need to invoke "Jeesus, or Yahweh!" because no doubt there are many users who would regard that as very offensive or worse. You denigrate yourself by that kind of "response", have some self-respect will you. By the way, did you read the entire article and not just a section that troubles your "sensitive" WP:IDONTLIKEIT taste buds?! Is there anything you like in Category:Jewish history by country, maybe from that we can understand what you are really trying to say? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to chat in a social forum about the niceties of etiquette. I looked at the article. Whoever edited that section knew nothing of zilch about wikipedia's editing criteria, history, Nepal, anything relevant. It viollates every known norm of article construction. This is obvious at a glance to anyone with a tertiary education: it glares at anyone who is trained in ancient history and languages. All I see here at least is WP:AGF finessing. I didn't come here to twiddle my thumbs and listen to adolescent old ladyish chat about the decline in manners, or hear out precocious fogies plying the worrybeads over potentially frayed sensibilities - these remonstrations about the social niceties are all very well, but this is an encyclopedia, it needs people who understand the subject matter, not people who anguish over imagined or petty offences. Again, it is inane to speak about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please note that I gave specific details as to why that jejune pastiche is rubbish in wikipedian and encyclopedic terms. What is your response? I must be animated by feelings of personal distaste. No. I did I degree in this stuff, and part of it consisted in reading Cosmas Indicopleustes's topography, young man. It's not distaste for anything but juvenile nonsense parading as learning. In the real world, i.e., a university seminar, you used to get booted for dropping dopey clangers like that into a term paper. Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, nice "peroration" but it's no excuse for using filthy language (presumably you learned that in "tertiary education"), oh and you forgot to insult "Allah and Buddha" while you were at it, or do you reserve your dislike only for "Jesus and Yahweh"? Anyhow, WP articles do not start out at the heights of academia to be acceptable, they must be written in good English, meet WP:V & WP:RS, preferably have WP:NOTABLE information and abide by WP:NPOV -- all of these criteria are fully met in this case and an AfD confirmed that. By your standards the four and a half million articles on WP would be reduced by about 90% or less if you owned the WP Foundation. Good thing you don't. Bottom line, WP:NOTPAPER and it welcomes all articles as long as they can be verified and are based on reliable sources. Even as a term paper this article would be a very good and get an A. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia becomes overrun with users who believe that what I am replying to is a useful argument, the encyclopedia is in trouble. The comment has nothing on the article content, just generic attacks on the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:RANDY. Chabad loves to insert itself and its version of Judaism into places where it doesn't otherwise exist...it's just as annoying (and frequently offensive) in real life as it is on Wikipedia. 72.17.156.179 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but the article as it stands now is very far from anything to do with that. Also, that is why in 2010 I took the pro-Chabad editors to task, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement, and they were warned at ArbCom accordingly, IZAK (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note and update to closing admin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal (result: keep);
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal (closed) (result: endorsed). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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[268]

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” [269]

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" [270]
“your rampaging against this article” [271]

• 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[272] 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 [273]. 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)

• Note and update to closing admin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal (result: keep);
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal (closed) (result: endorsed). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:52, 8 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 c 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 [274] and is being improved even as he has brought it to a frivolous DRV [275] 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 [276] [277] [278]. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [279] and that he "has been disruptive overall" [280] 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 [281] 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)

• Comment by Ravpapa: I usually stay out of these things, but since I was mentioned, I feel it behooves me to make a comment. So this is what I have to say: It is astonishing to me how much vitriol this particular article about Nepal has engendered. Tempers have risen so high, and, I mean, about what? Who cares? Admins, if I were you, I would close this thread before anyone has a chance to sling any more mud. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I would have closed the AfD as "No Consensus" on the basis that very few policy-related comments had actually been made and that pretty much everyone had casted their !vote depending on their POV on the actual subject matter (there's a shock). Unfortunately that's the problem with AfD, those that shout the loudest get their way quite often (and if they don't they try DRV as well). But a NC close would still have kept the article anyway, so the point is moot. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as "no consensus" might have facilitated a move to file a merge/move request, and certainly would have resulted in a less acrimonious editing environment. I (and I believe others, including an admin User:Drmies) would disagree that there were no policy based arguments made, though, as the article fails WP:N, but one has to actually look at the article to see that the content doesn't correspond to the container (i.e., the name). Maybe the policy needs some adjustment, but the "rough consensus" guideline seems to cover the issue insofar as it addresses "logical fallacy" and mere opinion in !votes. The point is that there is notable content, but not a notable article of that title, and not all of the content would survive a move/merge, while no viable renaming has been proposed that would meet WP:N. Material that supported the fact that it didn't meet WP:N was produced by more than one participant.

Meanwhile, the closing admin accused me of being disruptive in the close for removing fringe and other unrelated material that had been added during the AfD to "improve" the article. He then refused to explain the policy-based rationale, and accused me of lying on his talk page when I opened the DRV and stated that I'd queried the closing admin but was flat out refused an explanation of his reasoning. He has been described as being condescending and authoritarian on his alternate user's talk page[282] in the past day, and that is on the mark. Furthermore, in effect, the admins inflammatory comments provided fuel to IZAK, who'd been making personal attacks since the original AfD discussion, as demonstrated in his off-topic rant above.

I file a report against the personal attacks and not only is there no discussion of the personal attacks, I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak. On the other hand, Tomwsulcer files an entirely baseless report against me, ends up removing some of the illegitimate content he tried to foist into the article in order to unduly influence the outcome of the AfD, and is not called to account--or even questioned--by a single admin here.

This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you say "This process is looking like it's seriously dysfunctional, and this is a primary cause why Wikipedia can't maintain competent content contributors" so that now you are waging war against WP itself, and when you allege "I am besieged by political opponents on the other side of the political divide seeking to eliminate the competition, so to speak" -- what?! You are "besieged"? No one is "besieging" you and WP is definitely not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for your POV political battles. I am NOT your "political opponent" (whatever that means?) because you don't know me or my political views. You, like any good WP editor should strive for WP:NPOV and not to "defend" or "oppose" any so-called political views. Ubikwit, let me make it quite clear, no one is "out to get you", personally I have no idea who you are or what your POV views are, I never met you until a few days ago, and all I can say is, it is very difficult to work with you to gain WP:CONSENSUS because you use all the the rules of WP against its better interests, that is called WP:LAWYERING, WP:DONOTDISRUPT or worse. You have no compunction in impulsively reverting as many times as you feel like it, running to ANI as if it was your personal "bouncer", launching AfD's and DRV wasting so many users' precious time, and who knows what else on the drop of a dime when you cannot get your way, and then if you see the world around you crumbling you then blame WP! Grow up! WP is just fine, I have been on it for over eleven years and with all its ups and downs there is still nothing like it in the history of civilization. Be a team player and not a spoiler and above all enjoy Wikipedia, it is after all an encyclopedia we are building here coming from so many divergent world views we all have to learn the art of give and take. I look forward to more positive contributions and behavior and lowering of the heat. Take care, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Running to AN/I", etc., your personal attacks just keep coming, even at AN/I. You are the disruptive editor at issue here, regardless of your attempts to divert attention from that fact. After 11 years, you should know better, and the fact that you apparently have supporters here at AN/I doesn't phase me. You are wrong for maing personal attacks, and they are wrong for not holding you accountable for the personal attacks.

For the record, the 'besieged by political opponents' comment referred to the following AN/I ban proposal launched by Marek.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please don't let your imagination run away with you when you allege that I "apparently have supporters here at AN/I" because, this may come as surprise to you, I have never met any of the people who have commented about your abuse of the services at ANI, and they are unknown to me. However it seems they know you too well. Take responsibility for your own disruptive actions. You are an energetic editor but you are misdirecting your energies in negative directions that does not help you and is not helpful to Wikipedia. Now I must take leave of you for Fourth of July, Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Ubikwit from AN/I

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

---

Per WP:BOOMERANG. Regardless of the topic s/he is involved in Ubikwit treats Wikipedia as a battleground. And when s/he does not get their way on a particular article, they run here to create drama, or alternatively to other noticeboards, with the same end effect. Which is that they put a huge drain on editors resources and time. These endeavors regularly involve a gross misrepresentation of other editors' comments and behavior where any attempt to raise concerns about Ubikwit's behavior is transformed into a "personal attack". This is a textbook example of acting in bad faith nevermind failing to assume good faith. It also appears to be the case here as well.

It might very well be the case that Ubikwit has something to contribute to the project, although their (drama page participation)/(actual article content contribution) ratio does not make one hopeful. However, given their behavior so far, it might actually benefit the user his/herself to pull them away from the drama boards in order to get them to focus on content creation. Hence, I propose that Ubikwit is topic banned from starting threads or commenting on threads at AN/I for the next six months, after which they can ask for the restriction to be lifted. Enough already, if you're here to actually contribute then step away from drama boards and write some actual content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal modified below to include Volunteer Marek as well as Ubik together under the proposed topic ban based on their unhealthy obsession with each other and this noticeboard, with Volunteer Marek's edits representing more than twice as many as Ubik's. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - seems like a good idea, would force him/her to find solutions of editorial problems on talk pages rather than solicit administrative actions. Obviously the discussions related to Ubikwit him/herself should be exempted from the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now (see below), though I support giving Volunteer Marek to reformulate the proposal to incorporate evidence that Ubikwit's participation here is so disruptive that Ubikwit should lose the ability to file a complaint here. ANI is an important forum to seek the correction of serious behavioral problems. I would have to see not only that Ubikwit's conduct here was disruptive, but that there was a pattern of vexatious behavior despite more than one attempt to correct it. I just see access to ANI and related fora as being that important. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on Ubikwit's behavior in this thread, I believe some sanction is in order. I am not connived an ANI ban is it, rather than a temporary revocation of editing privileges to prevent further incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior. No comment on whether sanctions are merited for other parties: I specifically object to the changing of this proposal to include an interaction ban. (see below) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: What exactly is it that you find objectionable in my responses here? DO you assert that I don't have the right to defend myself against the baseless allegations being made? Some admins? It is not the case that I am unresponsive to criticism when the criticism has merit, so please explain your accusations of INCIVIL and BATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

See the commentary of my learned colleague Collect below. I was fully willing to oppose on the grounds of no evidence until you provided evidence of a civility and battleground problem yourself. I'm not saying I agree with an ANI ban; I do agree with Sphilbrick's reasoning, which I believe is reflective of my original comment. That said, and I'm sorry to say it, you need to take different measures to resolve this dispute. If you understand this I'd be more than willing to oppose any sanction on the grounds that, assuming you will go along with those recommendations, any sanction would no longer be preventative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of Wikilawyering and an inability to communicate, while at the same time the two admins making the allegations refused to address the communication problems at issue in this thread. That was all I meant by first repeating "Wikilawyering" and then substituting "sophistry" with respect to the same link. If peope don't agree that the comments I posted above are personal attacks, they should just say so--no one has--so it is not me that is failing to AGF. This report was filed in goof faith against straightforward, simple utterances that should be stopped. A warning would have sufficed. That said, I would really like to know what "different measures" I should have taken to resolve this dispute? I am not trying to be contrarian. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Based on Ubikwit's contrite comment to DarkFalls below, I am willing to AGF that what I saw in this thread was a temporary lapse due in part to sleep deprivation (and let's face it, we've all been there). Ubikwit should be considered on final warning that further problems on ANI are likely to result in sanctions. Therefore, I oppose any sanction and move to close this thread as anything more would not be preventive but punitive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Yeah it is boring and unproductive to read same content dispute every time. Alex Bakharev is correct, Ubikwit should take some break from ANI, but he won't so it is better to provide him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not familiar enough to comment with a decision myself, but I'd like to note that if a ban were placed, an exemption should be made for any topics involving Ubikwit (though that's probably a given). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable, and yes, the reason why it wasn't mentioned explicitly above is because it's pretty much a given. If someone else tries to bring Ubikwit here, Ubikwit would obviously be exempted from the proposed topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There's probably quite a few editors who probably should stay away. What's not clear (because only three diffs of ANI threads have been linked to, and none by the proposer) why this user is particularly deserving of this restriction. AFAIK, being banned from ANI has only happened in pretty extreme situations. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The drama boards can be addictive and I think Ubikwit needs to go cold turkey for a while per this (thanks G S Palmer for pointing to that useful tool). The username is presumably a reference to ubiquitous, and I always have that association when I see Ubiqwit's sig on this page here: "Man, that guy is ubiquitous on ANI". It's true that access to ANI and related fora can be important, as Mendaliv points out, but IMO it's only really important for responding to complaints about oneself, an exemption which is obvious, see several comments above. The ability to ask for administrative action against opponents can be withdrawn if it's used to excess and becomes an annoyance to the community. For the individual, it may divert attention from more collaborative ways of solving content conflicts, especially talkpage discussion. Also it's not like Ubikwit wouldn't have other recourse, for instance appealing to an individual admin or going to dispute resolution. Bishonen | talk 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
  • I thought the user name was a homage to Philip K. Dick's Ubik. As for the "useful tool", it shows 221 edits by Ubikwit to ANI, but it also shows 466 edits by Volunteer Marek. In that case, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and considering that Volunteer Marek appears whenever Ubik shows up, I propose that per WP:BOOMERANG, both Volunteer Marek and Ubikwit should both be given a topic ban from ANI, not one or the other. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nice try there Viriditas (I'm assuming this is payback for me having the nerve to disagree with you at the RS/N discussion). Let's see. Ubikwit: 229 edits to AN/I out of a total of 3,842 edits [283]. Myself: 466 edits to AN/I out of a total of 45,891 edits [284]. So I might have about twice as many edits to AN/I than Ubikwit, but I have twelve times as many total edits. That actually sort of shows the problem. If Ubikwit spent the same proportion of his editing time at AN/I as I have, he'd have... 37 edits here. But he's got more than six times that amount. Oh, and about 60% of my edits are to actual articles, whereas Ubikwit barely scratches 15%. Again, that's sort of the problem right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That useful tool sure is fun. I suppose my topic ban from ANI is in the mail. Also, someone pinged me to come here, but I am on vacation! There are too many words here and too few paragraph breaks for me to read this. I am with Ubikwit in the narrow matter of that ridiculous AfD and the invented history of Jews in Nepal; besides that, I really don't have an opinion and I wish you all happy ANIing. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment by Ubikwit Marek's complaint amounts to an attempt to smear an editor that has been on the opposite side of the partisan divide in a couple of content disputes directly or indirectly related to the Ukraine crisis, and because I introduced evidence at the American Politics Arbcom case against him misrepresenting a source.

I've never interacted on an article with Alex Bakharev, so his unsupported characterization of the complaint I have made here against explicitly personal attacks as "editorial problems" is an incomprehensible imaginary concoction. OccultZone is another editor I've not interacted with before, and maybe he'd care to elaborate on what exactly it is that s/he refers to as "the same content dispute". It seems that they are trying to claim that I repeatedly bring "the same content dispute" to AN/I, but they present zero evidence of such implicit allegation.

AN/I is not a venue for targeting editors perceived to be on the opposite side of a given content dispute. It is a venue for addressing conduct problems that interfere with the ability to resolve content disputes by civil discourses on Talk pages, etc.

Personal attacks are obviously one category of conduct prohibited for that reason. Not one of the admins commenting on this thread has addressed the personal attacks, and one has apparently characterized them as an "editorial problem", so the hypocrisy seems to be getting extremely thick here. Quoting from WP:NPA

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

I challenge you, admin @Alex Bakharev:, to deny that the above-quoted comments by IZAK are personal attacks. We'll take from there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Although there was an edit conflict so you didn't have the chance to see my above reply, considering that it appears that you, too, are an admin, I'm going to have to query your failure to address the personal attacks posted at the top of this thread. You would appear to be yet another admin that is remiss in their duty and engaging in some sort of selective/targeted enforcement out of process against an editor that has posted a straightforward report of misconduct. Incidentally, User:Sphilbrick cautioned GS Palmer regarding his remark before Marek opened this subthread, and Palmer apologized for the remark, yet you--along with Marek--seem to be intent on using that as some sort of hook. What is the basis for your !vote? I mean, as in policy-based rationale? You are an admin, right? It seems that you are insinuating that my filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Any insinuations that you see in my post are in the eye of the beholder. I neither insinuate nor state anything about your "filing this report"; I do state that you probably need an ANI break per this. Did you click on it, or do you prefer to change the subject? Yes, I'm an admin. The remissness in duty that you perceive in my not addressing everything in this thread, or everything on ANI, or everything on the site, is predicated on the fact that I'm a volunteer like yourself, with Wikipedia as a hobby; I address what I'm interested in addressing and find the most useful to address, currently the proposal to ban you from ANI.

I've said everything I had to say on that subject (twice, now), and won't engage further, as I'm quite wary of being drawn into some some absurdist question-and-answer session with you. People are probably looking and considering whether ANI would be better off without your wikilawyering, so you might want to avoid giving too crass an impression of wasting time. "Policy-based rationale", after I wrote all that explanatory stuff? Bah. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

So let me see if I have this right. You admit that you didn't even read the thread on which you have chosen to selectively comment on only one section because you don't have time; furthermore, you think that even if I raise legitimate conduct issues here I am wikilawyering? From where I stand the people that are making excuses for not addressing the personal attacks and instead looking for a way to stop filing legitimate complaints against people like IZAK, who just boasted about being on Wikipedpia for 11 years, are those attempting to engage in sophistry. IZAK the 11-year veteran Wikipedia! He should know better, and so should every admin commenting here without reproaching him for his conduct.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The regular ANI posts that Ubikwit makes every time he comes into conflict with another editor is wearing down my patience. That is disruptive. If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone on this project without making allegations of misconduct/policy violation, then perhaps he should not be editing here. The posts themselves are spurious and merit no admin action. In answer to Ubikwit's query of "[him] filing this report represents a more serious conduct violation than the personal attacks" - Bishonen may not be insunuating as such but I certainly am. Your frequent filing of these reports are certainly more disruptive and detrimental to the project than any perceived infractions that you have listed. Your inability to assess your own disruptive actions or to take on board the criticism of fellow editors regarding your behaviour (instead accusing them of foul play and dismissing criticism altogether) is completely against the spirits of this project. I hope that you will reassess your actions and fix the communication issues. Your response to this post will probably be laced with hostility and cite a dozen policy violations, but at least I oould say I tried. —Dark 12:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

At least you are more honest in presenting your thoughts, Dark, though obviously I am going to disagree with you and take issue with some of your remarks. You are out of line to suggest that "Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone".

Let's see if I can communicate directly with you, or if you will fail to hear me.

Are you claiming that the personal attacks quoted above are not personal attacks? Or that they don't rise to some unknown threshold that makes them subject to admin action? Let me point to WP:NOTANARCHY, and remind you that personal attacks are not a form of communication that is permitted on Wikipedia. Apparently I was mistaken to think that admins were tasked to enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"If Ubikwit is unable to communicate effectively to anyone". I am certainly not out of line to suggest a failure to communicate as you have demonstrated with your rather selective reading. "Enforce the behavioral norms when presented with a complaint". Certainly. I am seeing a problem in your behaviour and therefore I am voicing my concerns over it. And yet again you are demonstrating an inability to see fault in your own actions, confirming my point. —Dark 15:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're communicating. I didn't mean to miscontrue what you said.

Let me try to rephrase my concerns. I've been sort of accused of abusing this forum by making "bad faith" report(s). There is nothing "good faith" about personal attacks, on that I gather we would be in agreement. So it appears that the failure to hold IZAK accountable for those personal attacks--everyone, including you, has refused to say that they aren't personal attacks--would appear to lie in the degree or some other as yet unarticulated variable related to the attacks. I assure you that I'm not here to waste your time or mine, just to prevent conduct issues from impeding the resolution of content disputes. The claim that my filing a report here is diruptive to Wikipedia is a meta-assertion that fails to address the personal attacks. Am I failure to AGF is seeing the matter as such? Your only complaint about my conduct seems to be that you find my reports here to be frequent and frivilous, when at least one recent report resulted in a long-term disruptive editor being indeffed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You wish to hold IZAK accountable for his actions, yet you do not see any fault in your own behaviour. It is not only your frequent and frivolous reports that I find objectionable, but the way you choose to handle any criticism of your actions by deflecting blame to others and accusing them of foul play. You seem to be unable to grasp that your actions are the problem, not the solution. I am not here to comment on the nature of IZAK's activities, it is neither my obligation or inclination to do so (and since this is a thread on a ANI ban for you, it would hardly be the correct place either). I am commenting on your unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour, including your accusations of misconduct by casting dispersions on people who have criticised you, your wikilawyering as expressed by Bishonen and others above and your tendency to demand admin action at the first supposed indication of policy infraction by using ANI as the first avenue of complaint. Instead of expressing concern on IZAK's talk page, you come straight to ANI. You have done that 3 times in the span of 1 week, showing a clear tendency to antagonise others in times of disagreement rather than work collaboratively on this project. —Dark 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, the above-related report was not filed by me, I only responded to it. That means twice in one week, in related to completely different issues.

Secondly, I appreciate your advice to bring up such concerns on user talk pages, which is a practice I generally follow, but in this case IZAK was warned during the original AfD thread by User:Gregkaye here, as mentioned in the parent thread above. The WP:IRS talk page dispute was indirectly related to evidence filed at the American Politics Arbcom case.

Finally, I have to defend myself and say that I flat out disagree with your characterizations of my behavior, and frankly, I'm not interested in your psychoanalysis. If you have specific evidence to support your allegations of "unnecessary and aggressive battleground behaviour" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, or that "my actions are the problem, not the solution" aside from claiming that my reports are frequent and frivolous, please don't hesitate to present it instead of making sweeping and baseless generalizations about me. As stated explicitly in the text from WP:NPA that I've quoted in this thread, there is a difference between criticizing an editors editing versus criticizing the editor. You can criticize my actions, but not my character.

I filed this report on personal attacks in good faith, and your assertion that my intentions were otherwise is wrong and offensive. If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point that Ubikwit errs by coming to ANI before even trying to discuss an issue with the other party. Which is exactly why I am gobsmacked that some editors are doing exactly the same thing, jumping on the ban wagon before providing Ubikwit with advice or a warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: As stated (again) in the edit conflict edit above, IZAK had been warned about making attacks (against me) during the AfD thread by another editor.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, the difference is that plenty of feedback and criticism of Ubikwit's actions were presented in previous threads he had made. The problem, as I have specified many times, is that he has a tendency to accuse those that provide criticism/warning of bad faith and in general, dismiss all feedback presented to him. He has shown a pattern of attacking those that he disagrees with. That is extremely problematic. It's not as if we did not provide him with adequate warning. —Dark 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a little too process oriented, but it is my strong view that when a editor is engaging in activity that could result in a topic ban, we owe it to the editor to state in clear terms - "If this behavior does not change, you might be banned".--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It seems to me that DarkFalls is attacking my character as opposed to criticizing my filing of this thread (or any other specific "action"). Making attacks against an editors character is prohibited, I believe, even by admins.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

::sigh:: Now I know how user:Collect feels--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, I'm sure you can appreciate the difficulties of attempting to reason with an editor who considers any criticism to be an attack on his character. I am thoroughly unconvinced that providing him with a formal warning will elicit anything other than further contempt. From the evasive response to your warning on his talk page, I feel your efforts may be in vain although we can hope for the best. —Dark 09:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you are mischaracterizing my words, this time as being "evasive". Oh, but your just "criticizing" my actions, right?

I have repeatedly told you that I disagree with your casting aspersions on my filing this report as being "bad faith", etc., as with the OP of this subthread.

I understand that Sphilbrick can see how Marek might be able to characterize my filling this report on personal attacks as representative of BATTLE, but that is not the case. Other editors have characterized Marek's opening of this thread as representative of his BATTLE mentality, but I don't hear you harping on him. You did mention that I was trying your patience, though. Well, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY applies to admins as well, I would imagine. You're a volunteer, right? So am I.

Incidentally, let me refresh your memory that I replied as follows, directly to you several comment above

If I'm warned that this report was deemed to be somehow excessive or unnecessarily litigious, then I will certainly reduce the number of reports I file here, and chalk it up to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's DR process.18:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I trust you don't see anything evasive in that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 11:53 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that your reports have been deemed to be excessive and unnecessarily litigious by a vast majority of the editors here. There is no ifs and buts about it. The only question is whether your conduct is so disruptive that it merits a ban from this noticeboard. I would also like to note that casting aspersions suggest a lack of evidence - there is plenty of evidence that you have acted in bad faith as suggested by your actions in this noticeboard, including accusing an established editor of being a disruptive SPA, constant cries of unjustified persecution when faced with criticism and deflection of culpability or blame for your actions by pointing out the activity of others. As it appears that nothing productive will occur from continued discussion of this issue with you, I can only hope that you recognise the problems in your behaviour before you are faced with a heavy sanction. —Dark 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls: OK, I acknowledge that perhaps my understanding of AN/I's role in DR is somewhat inadequate, and consider myself warned against filing reports that may be seen as unnecessarily litigious.

Incidentally, I did not call an establish use a disruptive SPA, so there must be some misunderstanding there. I can only assume that this relates to the RS/N thread report involving Robrayner and Sairp. Any reference to an SPA in that thread was definitely made with respect to Sairp. I apologize for any confusion due to poor wording in that thread, which was filed under sleep-deprived conditions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Random section break 1

• Noting that the "modification" adding another editor was out of process and not relevant to this discussion
• Was going to oppose until Ubikwit accused everyone else of being Sophists - Support as a result Seems to cover it all. Ubikwit is engaging in battleground acts even where my usual inclination is to oppose all Draconian solutions as rarely working. Cheers, Ubikwit. You managed to change my mind here. Collect (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I understand the frustration, but this is not even a close call. I perused the editors talk page, and did not find a single warning about actions at ANI. I wish I could say we do not topic band people without warning, but we have. The one case I can recall prompted me to consider walking away from Wikipedia. This case is not as egregious; Ubikwit should be picking up clues that some are unhappy with the way they conduct themselves here, but we should not ban someone without clear warnings. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for the reasonable and supportive comment. Let me also point out that not all of my posts at AN/I can be said to have been counterproductive. Here is a recent post that resulting in action against a long-term disruptive editor [285]. When you edit in contentious areas, there are going to be disputes, and when conduct problems arise, I believe it is better to bring them here before they escalate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has certainly been warned many times about forum shopping and harassment in the past. Going back less than a week we have [286] where Ubikwit is noted as having up to five simultaneous discussions. [287] shows a very interesting example of his civility (Fuck off!), etc. And where one editor makes 200+ posts about another editor in a single month, there is a strong likelihood that he knows dang well precisely what he is doing. As I noted, I was going to oppose draconian sanctions as I generally do - until I saw Ubikwit exemplifying the epitome of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT." Collect (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- this proposal is merely a tactic by an editor who is battleground-oriented himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Supposing that a user has been banned from ANI, and then has a legitimate complaint to register, what is the user's alternative option? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say a more specialized noticeboard, or to directly ask for an admin's intervention. But how about WP:AN? Hmm. Well this generally goes to my concern mentioned above. What they do in federal courts when they deny vexatious litigants access is usually to require prior approval of the suit by a licensed attorney. So maybe here the solution would be akin to a mentorship-like relationship: ask an admin to file the thread on behalf, and make that a specific exception to WP:PROXYING in the ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Thomas.W ^talk 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nomoskedasticity. The disputed page is a disgraceful potemkin village of pseudo-stuff which belies the ostensible (see parallel pages) purpose of registering historical bonds to a territory with recent religious and touristic interests. Ubikwit noticed it, and is paying the penalty. As the recent tendency has it, tweely promish and yuppie p's-and-q's-ism is prevailing in disputes over serious content and scholarly editors.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about Ubikwit's battle-ground behaviour, not about the content of an article. A content dispute over a badly sourced, POV or whatever article does not excuse bad behaviour towards other editors. Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Do any of those rushing to judgement here know the field where this absurd accusation arose? This is about complaints made by his obligatory cancellation of four trash edits. I'm a trained orientalist, and have now examined the details. Tomwsulcer, I am certain in good faith, googled "stuff" that any orientalist would chuck out at less than a nanosecond's glance, and then complained earlier of Ubikwit's reverts. The battle-ground here is between commonsense (and scholarship) and editor's personal sensitivities about being reverted for foolish edits.

• the first cites Arutz Sheva four times. It is highly disputed as a source at RSN. The additions appear to be promotional, for Chabad and Israeli tourism. Viva Sarah Press is a Facebook page. Everything is screwed up there.
• (2) The second revert is correct again. Moshiach com is a bizarre non RS site for history (WP:Fringe) was infringed. This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for anything a google search throws up (like the laughable (and mendacious):” Most Kashmir researchers are of the opinion that many inhabitants of Kashmir are descendants of the Lost Tribes who were exiled in 722 BCE..".”(b) Ellen Frankel's article has no value for ancient history (because there is none); Alan Silver’s Jews, Myth and History: A Critical Exploration of Contemporary Jewish Belief, p.2 is falsely cited for an irrelevant comment, about the ‘hippie trail’ that leads to the ‘almost secret kingdom of Nepal’ (confusing Nepal with Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan). He’s talking about his wanderings in 1972, not about ‘accounts in literature of Jewish persons migrating to Nepal and the Himalayas’ (under Ancient History) (c) Destination Yisrael is not RS for anything but its own non-notable existence in the blogosphere, and not even for for the bizarre speculation that Ezekiel got past the Caspian Sea to Nepal!!! That is extreme weirdo fringe belief. (d) A certain Robert Mock from the same insane website speaks of speculation that the Buddha is of Jewish descent. Hey folks, wake up and read what the plaintiff got upset at, Ubikwit’s deletion of the idea that the Buddha was actually born from the genetic loins of the Lost Ten Tribes of the House of Israel,’ which is never stated in the vast body of historical Jewish literature. The idea arose among Telegu Jews who got it from modern Christian proselytisers. (e) there is no historical literature connecting the Kaifeng Jews with Nepal.
• (3) The revert was correct for the same reasons as above. Stuff like ‘However, there is speculation that links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham (a myth, not an historical figure), as well as speculation 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.( name=Birnbaum)' is worse than WP:Fringe fantasy: it's drunken trash. Jews did not exist as an ethnos when the caste system, which developed from the tripartite Indo-European ideology the Aryans brought to India, was developed and the idea that the word Brahmin has a Jewish origin defies the precise results of the science of philology.
• (4) Again, correct and obligatory. There is nothing in the Bnei Menashe traditions (whom genetics rules out as having any gene-markers with high frequency in Jewish populations) that identifies Nepal as a transit point. It was a clear WP:OR sviolation.

Worst still, behind all of these edits, unwittingly or no, lie the arguments of Rabbi Eliyahu Birnbaum, who has a direct interest in promoting conversion in those countries. It may be a coincidence, but objectively Ubikwit was reverting blobs of material directly or indirectly associated with the wild fantasies of figures like Birnbaum, ideas that have no place on an article dealing witn Nepal, since they are proselytising, and their presence here consists in self-promotion. Proof if ever that wikipedia is increasingly a control society where face and etiquette and avoiding stepping on toes is far more important than scholarly content.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • @Nishidani: Correct (functioning, at any rate) link to webpage on Rabbi Eliyahu Birnbaum, and the affiliated organization.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's still just a content dispute that should, and can, be handled through the proper channels. It doesn't matter how fringe a theory is (and I've seen lots of really fringe theories here on WP...), it is still no excuse for behaving the way Ubikwit does. Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Your comments above, here where this started some days ago, are all radically indifferent to the fact that Ubikwit was absolutely correct in his removal of trash and blatant POV-promotional pushing. You do not appear to be disturbed by the presence of trash. You appear to have an eagle-eye for 'good form' apropos Ubikwit, who is being singled out here, but not for the obvious elephant in the room. Content is not written by Emily Posters. It's written by people with some understanding of both commonsense and scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighting POV-pushing is what I usually do here on WP, so your comment is as far off the mark as it could be... Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Idem, and I have specific competence in both these areas. I identified flagrant POV-pushing, inadvertently or otherwise, in several edits on the page which lies in the background of the complaints against Ubikwit, and showed his defence of the neutrality of the encyclopedia by his reverts was perfectly policy compliant, both commonsensical and informed by an eye for nonsense. It would appear this counts for nothing. Examine everyone's contribution, in a POV- issue, which, in this regard, requires some basic understanding of the subject, which is not apparent in the many comments in this thread, where one editor's behaviour (WP:Boomerang) is focused on, to the exclusion of the absurd material he rightfully expunged, in what was not edit-warring, but the application of encyclopedic criteria.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment To those who has expressed support after I pointed out that the user has never been warned, are you really supporting the notion that someone can be banned without being warned, or did you see someone warning I have missed? Isn't it generally accepted than when an editor engages in "bad" behavior, they are warned first, and stronger measures enacted if the warning isn't heeded? Has that general approach been changed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment to Sphilbrick. Ubikwit's talk page is Warning City. here, here, here, here, here, here, blocked from editing, generally for disruptive editing, 3RR, wikibattling; the Wikipedia community has been more than patient with her/his behavior. Was the warning specifically about AN/I? Not sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough. I see some warnings, but I haven't seen one stating, or even hinting that a topic ban might be considered. And while your list of seven diffs looks long on the surface, did you actually read them? The first was from me, posted AFTER this thread started, because I felt we owed a warning. That doesn't count as a warning before the ban consideration. The second and third are warnings from someone who was blocked as a result of a report by Ubikwit. One is a friendly 3RR warning, one not so friendly, but violations of 3RR can lead to a block, not an ANI topic ban. And so on. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a bureaucracy. When you get warnings repeatedly on your talk page. And when you generally have a focus on one area its not hard to imagine you wont end up topic banned from that area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. Editors can reasonably be expected to read the atmosphere and conclude from the total failure of prior ANI threads that starting another in the same manner will not end well. If Ubikwit cannot or will not do this, it is entirely reasonable to consider sanctions to prevent the sort of repetitive disruption that will surely result otherwise. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: As mentioned above (twice now?), a recent report I filed that resulting in a long-term disruptive editor [288] being indeffed. It is simply not the case that my participation here is no more than disruptive. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, substitute "near total failure" for "total failure". You need to learn to read the atmosphere. Go elsewhere first. Settle your disputes through the normal dispute resolution processes. And work on civility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't have the energy to read all of this but I would advise anyone to making decisions to have a good open minded resd of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_ of_the_Jews_in_Nepal . I am about to leave my comments.... IZAK as you must be completely aware there were many polite and decent comments on both sides of the argument yet you consistently used derogatory language and then with unabashed hypocrisy criticised others for the very actions that you were guilty of. As for red herrings, you sure know how to fish. Please look at the others that were supporting the keep argument. You could learn from them. Gregkaye (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose seriously a ban from ANI? Unworkable and unrealistic. If you're going to ban someone for something then do it, essentially telling them they're banned from administrative functions is way out of order. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  "Unworkable"? In what way? BMK (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The comment is made that Ubikwit has not been warned. He has been criticized. No thread filed by Ubikwit here has been closed with a warning because his constant threads alleging personal attacks and abuse (which often have some merit, but do not rise to ANI) just tire everyone out and we just want the noise to go away. In this particular thread, whether the consensus to keep was right or wrong, there clearly was no consensus to delete, and Ubikwit's immediate reopening was tendentious and forum shopping. If Ubikwit really identifies an issue that requires ANI action, I am sure that he can get someone else to file it. I am not proposing that he be topic-banned from commenting on ANI threads, but only that he be topic-banned from starting them (or subthreads). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The assertion that my opening a DRV discussion "was tendentious forum shopping" is baseless, and I request that it be struck.

First of all, I contacted the closing admin and asked for an explanation of his reasoning, then I asked him again a day later after he failed to reply. After being denied an explanation, I filed the DRV request(thread here), according to standard procedure. The first comment by an uninvolved editor, User:S Marshall was

It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)(underlining added)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• And that's how I feel about discussing whether History of the Jews in Nepal should be deleted. There appears to be a conduct dispute as well, which I think should probably take place at RFC/U. I'm afraid I'm not interested in the conduct dispute, although I do have a fairly strong view on the article.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure this is a good precedent. He should have been given a warning prior to the discussion of a topic ban, and I'm not convinced that his disruption is severe enough that it rises to the level of such a sanction. He has apparently annoyed a lot of people, but that seems more like an issue for an RFC/U. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: following the reasoning in the post above me by NinjaRobotPirate. There is contentious behaviour by more than one editor involved in the inclusion or exclusion discussion regarding this particular article on Nepal, but again that is just user conduct. I agree that we should not topic ban at this point because of lack of enough correct warning. Fylbecatulous talk 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The above ANI thread opened by Ubikwit could even have some merit, as the IZAK's words show some battleground behaviour and some lack of good faith. Probably there is not enough for having IZAK blocked, but surely not enough for a BOOMERANG. --Cavarrone 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad precedent, and Cavaronne (above) has a point. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not that I endorse bringing every quarrel under the sun to a notice board, but there has to be venue for everyone to seek intervention and advice from uninvolved users. If not here, then where?- MrX 17:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. Sphilbrick's comments above of merit, within this discussion. ANI is an awful place; wikipedia is an awful place, that's what I get out of this kind of stuff going on. --doncram 19:29, 7 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)

Shades of Tumbleman. EEng (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish now I'd done that. I thought I was talking to 2 editors at Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh, I can see now that I was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as article-fixing goes, I'm going through the contribs and removing/rewriting/reworking now. Feel free to revert if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. Woodroar (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a number of copyvio links to sidurisadvice.com - these were to pdfs of copyright works. We shouldn't be linking to copyvio sites. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic

Irrelevant sideshow Blackmane (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Panda, how's your WP:SOCK account doing? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Do you really need to highjack this for your beef? Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Are you his lackey or another sock account too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. But hey, whatever the panda ₯’ 19:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I've read that. Several times. I'm just pointing out to people who may not be aware of your other account. Always fun when someone refuses to read WP:AGF. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User name User:Siduri-Project

Question: wouldn't it be fair to call User:Siduri-Project a name that implies a shared use? Right now, it may be a single person but there's no reason why the project couldn't share the account. It's also arguably promotional but I don't think projects qualify under that policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the editor is now going by the moniker User:Jim-Siduri. However, they are still editing the User:Siduri-Project userpage under some kind of impression that that is some kind of wikiproject or something. Hurts to think about it too much. Rgrds. --64.85.214.37 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the 3 older ones, redirected their userpages to the new account's userpage and copied material over as well. Maybe this will sort it now. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good call Dougweller. For now I think that is probably enough as far as administrative action is concerned, until and unless the one account left (Jim-Siduri) ends up being too disruptive to participate. But at least it looks like the socking issue is dealt with. I'm not ready to write Jim off as having no potential, I like to think he has been acting in good faith but made a lot of missteps born from both being inexperienced and being very eager, which is a combination that often leads to mistakes and inadvertent disruption. -- Atama頭 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

He's happy with it. But he thinks he can somehow get us to change our copyvio policy and is wasting his time (and mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and User:Teaksmitty

Not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies if not. Basically, @Teaksmitty: mentioned user has carried out a series of moves to this article this afternoon, including one actual page move, from the long term title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to The Islamic State (Caliphate) and then a subsequent attempt to cut/paste move it to the title The Islamic State.

Note that this is currently the subject of a move request on the talk page, which has not been closed and nobody has determined consensus there, so clearly until that happens it should not have been moved. @Turgan: has undone the cut/paste move, but not the original page move.

The original title, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, now has a non-trivial edit history of three revisions, so I am unable to move it back myself without administrator assistance. I'd therefore like to request it to be reverted by an admin, and possibly move protected until the WP:RM is closed, if you deem that a good idea. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I was only able to go so far. These moves will require an admin for clean-up. Turgan ^Talk 17:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Teaksmitty has been a problem for some time. I've asked him to get agreement for any page moves and if he gets that agreement he must get someone else to do the move. And that I will block him if he ignores my request I will block him. While I'm here, we need eyes on Caliphate as this is getting a lot of editing now from IPs and new editors. Apologies but I'll leave the move fix to someone else. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Amakuru that the article should be move protected until the RM has concluded. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved back to original title pending the outcome of the move request. I think full move protection is a good idea but will hold off on implementing it myself. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken care of the talk page which was moved twice by Teaksmitty, so your moving back of the article didn't catch it. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I did the move protect. I can't wait to see how the discussion winds up. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)