Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838

     This page has been manually edited after archiving. Please see page history for state of discussions at time of archiving.

Skookum1 again

{{collapse top|Much shouting, much incivility, much flinging of excrement against many editors. No sanctions have yet to be applied beyond the intial block. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger should go well out of their way to not think about Skookum1. (non-admin closure) Hasteur (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)}} [I have stricken this per talk page, as the admins in question were acting in admin capacity and on the request of other users, and are to be commended for taking on this unpleasant chore. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)] I despise getting into this sort of thing (and in fact, I believe this is the first time I've ever actually filed an ANI report that wasn't a ban request for a sockpuppeteer, but...), but the behavior of Skookum1 (talk · contribs) has not moderated since the last ANI, in fact if anything, it's become worse. His previous assumptions of entitlement on the basis of being an expert on subjects are continuing, and he is flat-out telling other editors to "[keep] your nose out of categories you know nothing about the subject matter thereof", and he continues to assume any opposition to him is an attack on him personally. However what spurred this report is that he and BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) have been...engaged in discussion...at this CfD (where the above behavior is ongoing), and my attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters was met with this response. This is wholly unacceptable behavior for any Wikipedian, and I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, since it's obvious Skookum1 has decided that I am the enemy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply "The Witchunt Part II" huh? What is needed is not a ban to get me out of Wikipedia, but as noted/"hinted" by RadioKAOS what is really needed here is an interaction ban against BHG and now you for harassment and obstructionist behaviour. The CfD was launched moments after I created the category and is without guidelines to back it, or anything but IDONTLIKEIT and is entirely AGF in tone; BHG demands evidence and examples, I provide them, she says they're " 95%...irrelevant" and presumes to tell me to "cool down" and calls my detailed explanations "diatribes". "Walls of text" I'm avoiding by bulleting and paragraphing but failing that complaint, she engages in denial and obfuscation and more "bring me a shrubbery" gambits despite lots of shrubbery already being provided.
  • • The CfD has consumed three (two? - seems like longer) days of what would otherwise be productive time for this contributing editor; as with the regional district hyphen-endash RMs and last year's native endonyms RM, which were similarly stonewalled by demands for irrelevant picayune information, what underlies the categories being challenged is both consensus and very findable citations; but you can put reality in front of someone, they will still go IWANTMORE as BHG is doing; failing that the tactic being mounted here is to get me banned. Given that BHG has targeted whole hierarchies of categories she doesn't even understand where or what they are about is a case in point of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about not being useful in such discussions; and who have no business nominating them unless they'er clearly against guidelines; which these categories are not, as the 'oppose' votes have pointed out.
    • Calling for a ban against me is draconian and destructive. I wanted to stay away from procedural discussions after the painful round of insults and NPAs and pat-judgments that typified the "burn him, burn him!" "votes" in the last ANI, which was closed "no consensus for a ban or block", but in the wake of which (maybe within minutes, I haven't looked at the date/timestamps) I was blocked by BHG anyway, and then she went and conducted hostile closures on RMs where she ignored consensus, view stats, googles, guidelines and the prevailing and emergent consensus which closed/moves 90%+ of similar RMs.
    • And though I went at trying to work on articles and get away from the witchhunt mentality that prevails in this oh-so-negative "discussion board", I created some river articles arising from creating Tsetsaut and created a category for the many rivers in the region in question and was immediately faced by a CfD from an admin who had blocked me without consensus. The CfD should be tossed out on those grounds alone, never mind that she has yet to provide a valid argument for deleting/merging the categories she's assailing, and has expanded her challenge to my work by going after whole hierarchies of categories which, in various phases and on various talkpages, do have consensus as necessary.
    • This is a nuisance ANI, just like the CfD is a nuisance CfD, and though you claim you're not my enemy, your WP:DUCK action here says otherwise. "A subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will not advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" (Junius) comes to mind. Arbitrary and high-handed abuse from a certain cadre of admins is now far too common in Wikipedia, and is entirely destructive and anti-contributing-editor in tone/intent time and again; this deleted/censored comment of the now-banned Kumioto is one of many of this kind.
    • Actions like yours here and your obstructive presence on a CfD you yourself say you don't care about the outcome of are what is disruptive and anti-Wikipedian....not somebody who stands up to pointless criticism and denials of evidence/example; making me the target instead of addressing the evidence provided is your hallmark; as is deluging discussions with personal-related criticism instead of actually useful, thoughtful comments on the issues and the topic.
    • And yes, if someone knows nothing about geography of a certain region, or about the category system on such topics, then it is not their business to intrude and create more procedure just to stonewall and make specious demands which are then ignored or derided.......I'm having computer problems probably from the 100 degree plus heat here in Ko Samui (sleep mode happening repeatedly without being asked) so won't be able to respond to the inevitable dogpile of condemnations and hypocrisy like surfaced last time around.
    • the previous anti-consensus block by the person who launched the CfD calls into question her motives; her anti-AGF behaviour about citations and explanations provided is just sheer obstinacy and is disruptive and tendentious. I was contemplating an ANI or RfA or RfC or some other measure to discipline her, but I dislike procedure, as most contributing editors do, and want to write articles, not be hauled in front of kangaroo courts where attacking contributing editors is a past-time. The CfD is a waste of time and groundless and purely personal in motivation, and amounts to wiki-stalking by someone who has already taken actions in defiance of a 'no consensus' closure that said not to; how ironic she would claim that long-standing region titles should need "consensus"....they have it; but like evidence that 95% of which I'm sure she didn't read, "consensus" is really not what she wants, other than to use the CfD to overturn it. But why?. "Because it's Skookum1 who started that category so let's pretend there's something wrong with it"......and now, hell, let's just go after every category and title he's ever written huh?
    • Banning me would be a dangerous loss for Wikipedia, but you seem insistent on it for purely personal reasons and here as on the CfD and in previous discussions you indulge in WP:BAITing and what amounts to purely destructive behaviour. I just want to write and improve articles, but my time is being taken up defending myself against baiting and groundless anti-AGF criticism and harassment. Maybe one day "ordinary" (contributing) Wikipedians will be free from the tyranny of the vocal minority who infest discussion boards, be it here or on RMs or CfDs or in guideline discussions; but as long as public crucifixions and stonings of people who do constructive work continue, that day is a long ways off yet.
    • What is needed here, again, is not a ban to rid Wikipedia of me, but an interaction ban against those who have persistently harassed me and who refuse to read or acknowledge evidence and who have no logic or guideline citations to speak of; just IDONTLIKEIT and that's it. I have a great deal yet to contribute to Wikipedia, but the last few months have seen procedural attacks that are totally counterproductive and timewasting......so rather than goading me so you can condemn me, why don't you just stay out of my way and not jump on every discussion you see me in?? Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• speedy close ani is just fuel on the fire. Close this, close the cfd, and leave him alone for a while. I can't see anything else working.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Carrite and Obiwan for your sanity. Days of article-writing time have been consumed by the demands made in the CfD, and this ANI is just more harassment of someone who is acknowledged as a highly productive and prolific editor who "knows his shit". I submit again as I did above that an interaction ban is maybe needed; but less formal would be WP:DISENGAGE on BHG's and Bushranger's part; the RMs that were harmed by their biases against me should also all be revisited because of the prevailing and mounting consensus that would have seen them passed/moved. The COI passage on closures says nothing directly about personal vendettas, but that's all that CfD really is, and what this ANI is.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not "engage" you. I offered a caution and calming advice, in the hopes of avoiding your getting blocked, and I got a blistering tirade of personal attacks for my trouble. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "calming advice"??? you're either flattering yourself or just not clued in; you engaged me repeatedly before, always condemning and criticizing while claiming you are "giving advice", but your actions cluttered a CfD to the point where even when I produced citations from TITLE you accused me of continuing to BLUDGEON; the bludgeoning is yours, you painting yourself as innocent and even friendly is just..... there are a host of adjectives available...... given your track record with me saying you did not "engage" me by chiming in with a "support" and very AGF vote on a very AGF and pointless CfD puts the lie to the saintliness you are painting yourself as here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• What is being requested here? I don't get the point of this thread. Is a block being requested, or a ban? No? This needs to be at something like RfC/U and not here. Doc talk 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd aver that a plain ol' RfC be held on BHG's launch of the CfD and her bad closes on sundry RMs, and her unilateral unsanctioned block of last week. I'm trying to be be a productive editor but finding my time tied up, and my presence here threatened, every time I turn around. The CfD, despite disclaimers that it's not anti-AGF, is very much so and in the context of recent events and words is highly COI in origin. The "Squamish matter" and the against-consensus/precedents closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, British Columbia and others need to be all redone because of the personal bias against me but the closer and their context within the recent ANI discussion/period. As Obiwan and Carrite have observed, I just want to be let alone so I can focus on article writing instead of having horseshoes thrown at me by people who have really nothing constructive to offer; I tried to "stay out of the way", but found myself stalked and pounced on and a whole host of categories challenged by someone who's never even heard of them before. As I said in the last ANI, I'm not the problem here; bad attitudes are, and the prevailing negativity of kibbitzers who nitpick on titles and topics without even knowing what they're about.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Raking me over the coals in an RfC/U would just be more procedure and no doubt an even more hostile and prejudicial environment than ANI is. And to what end? To alienate yet another long-time contributing editor and either drive or ban him from Wikipedia forever? The amount I could have gotten done in the last few weeks/months is obviously considerable; instead I have been regularly attacked and vilified and finally subjected to a public stoning and then a peremptory, unsanctioned-by-ANI ban by the person who now is asking non sequiturs and ignoring evidence provided as asked, and sticking her tongue in her cheek pretending innocence while castigating my information as irrelevant and wikilawyering in extremis. I was accused in the ANI of being a "time sink", but I'm not the time sink; procedure of the sake of the sport of it IS. How much of my last year or two has been taken up by time-consuming procedure of all kinds? Way too much. How many articles could I have improved and created in the meantime?? Subjecting me to an RfC/U to please those who have nothing better to do than criticize others is just gonna be more of the same....Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What is being requested here is that somebody give Skookum1 a plain-English warning that personal attacks like the one linked in the OP are simply not on, since it would be improper for me to do so both on account of being involved overall (and the target of said attack) and since it would be taken as just more proof of being persecuted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Damn right it is; you're the one doing the persecuting while claiming to be "not my enemy".....WP:DUCK says it all. You had nothing constructive to add at the CfD and here you are being destructive and calling for draconian measures to silence me forever. Give me a break, pal, I'm trying to get work done and loathe being hauled before mindless, picayune procedure that has no real productive value at all. Are you improving Wikipedia today? How? By launching an ANI against someone who just wants to be left alone so he can get some work done? Wow, very constructive....the CfD should be and I hope does get tossed out, and this ANI should be shut down for being the vendetta and witch hunt that it so clearly is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "Are you improving Wikipedia today"? Well let's see, I wrote an article from scratch and spent four hours building a table in another article. It was indeed a productive day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Evasion and misdirection is staple fare it seems; you calling for a ban on me for my getting impatient with obstinance and obfuscation in t he CfD is definitely draconian......as is coming to this ANI at all, considering the threats of "escalating blocks" that were not consensus-agreed-to, but done anyway; Drop the hammer and go write some articles if that's really what else you do.... Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • And this little edit comment of yours sums up the cynicism and hostility underlying you bringing me before "the court" today; and imputes that I need "fixing", which is just more NPA and AGF while you wrap yourself in saint's robes. Go fix yourself, pal, I'm not the problem around here, people like you ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Bushranger: "...you're right, this is pointless. Somebody feel free to close this, so that nothing can be done and eventually he'll will be blocked, banned, or "driven away", because nobody cared to try to fix things while they might be fixable)"
              • I am not calling for a ban, or even for a block, here. The purpose of this ANI was to ask for a warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of the Cfd -- well, actually I skimmed the last part because it just went on and on.... Skookum1's unwillingness to stay on topic and repeatedly personalize the discussion there is inappropriate. Comment on content, not contributors I find myself surprised this is coming from a 50K mainspace 9 year editor -- it's not a viable long term approach to collaborating on Wikipedia. NE Ent 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick visit to my talkpage this morning shows just how badly Skookum personalizes things. The short version is this: Skookum made an edit to this page earlier - they must have got an edit-conflict, but clicked "save" anyway. It erased someone else's post, so I reverted with an appropriate edit-summary. Skookum then happily dropped by my talkpage to make accusations, and even when they restored their post, the edit-summary accused my of something nefarious. Gigantic time sink.  the panda  ₯’ 10:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some bug in the software -- that type of edit, where an addition to one section removes content from another -- happens here sporadically. It's worse when there are lots of threads present. NE Ent 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Whether it was caused by a bug or by user error, the point is that DangerousPanda acted quite properly and non-judgmentally, but still got flamed instead of thanked. That's the sort of behaviour which keeps on bringing Skookum1 to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, there was there a lack of WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [1]] is only partially true -- while restoring edits accidentally removed by Skookum1 Panda did, in fact, remove Skookum's. See [2] for how to correct an ANI bug removal. We have enough "dirt" on Skookum without piling on nonsense. (It's this type of crap which leads credence, warranted or not, to the fiction that admins are a self-protecting cabal.) NE Ent 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BHG

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [3]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[9].

As Obi pointed out, this scheme could create thousands of more categories so before pursuing it further I'd get broader consensus at the geography page.

Unfortunately, the CFD page is filled with long rants from Skookum1. His reply to the Bushranger was merely one of many diatribes on that page alone.

Skookum1 is clearly a very enthusiastic editor, keen to expand coverage of the topics which interest him. But he has great difficulty with collaboration, and with consensus-forming processes. Instead of Bold, revert, discuss, the Skookum1 version seems to be bold, revert, diatribe. In more discussions than I can count, editors who disagree with him have been denounced at length, often to the detriment of the discussion; countless editors have been accused by him of personal vendettas, and of failing to respect his expertise. I first encountered Skookum1 when I closed a CFD which had been open for over a month. Not hard to see why was unclosed: Skookum1's comments were far too long to read in any reasonable length of time.

I subsequently encountered a lot more of his battleground conduct while closing some of the RM backlog; one of those discussions was what prompted me to block him, because although the thread was a bit stale, the disruption was still ongoing elsewhere. Skookum1 alleges that I have been making "hostile closures on RMs" and that I "ignored consensus". If he genuinely believes that, then rather than repeating attacks on me in countless pages, why not just take the closures to Move review? If he's right, the closures will be overturned.

The personal attack which prompted this thread was in response to a warning from The Bushranger, who is merely one of a long series of editors to plead with Skookum1 to calm down. Others include:

A warning here seems justified, but I doubt it would change anything. Skookum1 appears to have pre-emptively dismissed it as persecution, and to have categorised User:The Bushranger as one of his legion of persecutors.

It seems to me that the question is how can Skookum1 be helped to work collaboratively? Sometimes our contributions to Wikipedia are challenged, and discussing those disagreements civilly and concisely (see WP:TPYES) is fundamental to editing Wikipedia works. Sometimes the result is decisions we like, and sometimes we disagree with the result, but that's how it works here.

Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework. Would a mentor help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He also hasn't figured out how to put across his point without using reams of words, which make many of his comments virtually unreadable. BMK (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think using a lot of words on a talk page is a problem. It's an annoyance for some, and it no doubt reduces the effectiveness of arguments of principles being made, but some people use more words than others. It's a minor party foul if it is a party foul at all. I also appreciate that there is a lot of venom and antivenin being spilled all over the place. Everyone involved needs to just let it go, forgive, forget, and move along. l've strongly advised Skookum not to answer here and I hope he doesn't. I similarly hope that this thread is shut down expeditiously — it has done nothing but fan the embers. Skookum is a productive content contributor; just let him go without whacking him in the head every five minutes. Differences in deletion discussions happen and sometimes they get needlessly heated. Everybody needs to breath deeply, to step back, to do something else for a while. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty to be done without launching into rounds 6, 7, and 8 of a fight that inevitably ends up with a productive contributor's head on a pike. I've seen this pattern too many times and it sickens me. Just let it go, everyone. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Carrite, is that while everyone else forgave, forgot, and moved along, Skookum1 did not, and that is the reason this thread was opened. Being a "productive content contributor" does not excuse unprovoked and vehement personal attacks, it does not permit tossing around accusation of bad faith, and it does not allow someone to tell people to "get their nose out" of areas that person edits in. We can address the fact that Skookum1 has done all of these things (repeatedly, over and over) now, and hopefully retain him as a contributor, or we can close this and just come back to it in a week, month, or year, with another even stronger outburst of drama and the likely loss of the contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem here. One that involves more than User: BrownHairedGirl and User:Skookum1. The problem is the clash between those who want to contribute content to Wikipedia and those who try to stop them. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa, I've seen you make allusions to this before, and I think you're wrong. bHG has created ~3300 articles (or more?) and probably thousands of categories. What evidence do you have that she, or anyone else, is either 'not' contributing content to Wikipedia, or trying to stop those who are? Don't paint this as a clash of civilizations or of contributors vs others - simply no evidence that it is as simple as that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the typical tired refrain of people who think Wikipedia would be better off as an experiment in anarchy. They tend to think that the creation of some content should become an impervious shield that protects them from the consequences of behavioural issues. Resolute 23:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's especially droll, as I checked out @BrownHairedGirl:'s contribution history - she has many more edits, and a higher percentage of those edits in mainspace, than @Ottawahitech: and Skookum1 put together! Her overall percentage of mainspace edits is 67% (~248,000 edits to mainspace), whereas Ottawa has 22,000 edits in mainspace (in other words, 10x FEWER content-creating edits), and Skookum has 48,561 mainspace edits. The other editor who started this thread, The Bushranger, has 54,723 mainspace edits, again more than either Ottawa or Skookum. I'm not trying to denigrate the contributions of Skookum1 and Ottawahitech, and I myself have many fewer edits than all these folks, but the claim that this is about content creators vs something else is ridiculous, and I think Ottawa should withdraw that comment and apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

A withdrawal by User:Ottawahitech would be welcome. Ottawa appears a bit confused about what their beef is, because further down this page complains that I "try to do too much".

One minute, Ottawa complains that I am a non-content-creator picking on content creators. The next that as a content-creator I am shouldn't be an admin.

I hope that Ottawa will recall that one of the definitions of a personal attack is accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and that policy is that such comments are "never acceptable". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One Month Block Proposal

Once again we are hear and once again I notice borderline and outright personal attacks in difs and in the ANI comments. This obviously needs to stop, and the only way to do so is to force the individual to step away. Being cautioned has done nothing, and closing the previous thread before enough people weighed in for the week block last time prevented any action forth coming. Since then the problem has expanded, but I AGF that there is hope for the editor. That is the only reason an indef is not proposed. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a nice, round number. One month in "the hole". For... prevention of imminent damage, to protect the encyclopedia. Oppose. Doc talk 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - "to protect the encyclopedia" - the imputation that I am damaging the encyclopedia by expanding content and improving its categorization is just yet more AGF and misrepresentation; the call for a one-month block is draconian; it's like you're all wanting to up the ante without EVER discussing the issues and evidence in the CfD. It's persecuting contributing editors that's damaging wikipedia, all in the name of protecting the encyclopedia but really protecting the prerogatives and apparently immunity from review or questions about their motives, abilities and prejudices. I'm not the only one to observe the ongoing conflict between "wiki-idealists" and "wiki-bureaucrats", and I'm sure finding out what that's all about the hard way. What's going on here is a black mark in the history of Wikipedia...one among many, it seems....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose having created 350+ articles and 980+ images means I'm not a content contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Whether or not a block is the solution, there is a problem. Skooum1's conduct repeatedly disrupts consensus-forming discussions.

Skookum1's response to a discussion where he doesn't like the proposal, or where the debate isn't going his way, is to flood it with rants about all the rest of the ways in which he perceives himself to have been wronged, about the alleged ulterior motives of anyone who disagrees with him, about their intruding into topic areas which he feels are his preserve, etc. In the CFD which started this ANI discussion, Skookum1 has already posted 39,333 characters (2/3 of the thread), most of it unrelated to the CFD. His on-topic points are mixed in with the diatribes, so anyone trying to follow the substantive discussion can't easily skip over the outpourings of his frustration.

This sort of disruption has been seen in countless other discussions. See for example this RM, and this CFD, where the substantive discussion was drowned out in extraordinarily verbose outpourings of rage. All of this runs counter to WP:TPG, and impedes consensus-formation.

Skookum1 has repeatedly been pointed to appropriate ways of addressing his grievances. Don't like a CFD closure? Take it to DRV. Don't like an RM closure? Take it to WP:MR. But instead of using the established channels to review these issues, he rants about them in other discussions, so nothing ever gets resolved.

I suggested above that mentorship might help. What's your preferred solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

why should I not raise the issue of your motives in those closes, or in starting the CfD, which you still have not provided any tangible rationale per guidelines or conventions; that I supplied examples and direct citation evidence only to have you pronounce all of that as "irrelevant" and then make further demands, is obstructionism pure and simple.

• You stylize my posts as "diatribe(s)" and worse plus other similar/usual NPAs and AGFs you have fielded at me both in the CfD and in the RMs and stonewalled, claiming evidence was still needed - when lots was provided. You ignore the points made by the "oppose" votes, you mumble about consensus and evidence despite the evidence already being there; and re the regions categories you have hinted should also be deleted, you have ignored consensus that lay behind their development and yet now you want a consensus on geography categories and a centralized discussion. To what end? The guidelines and policies already exist, you just refuse to acknowledge them. In that context, why should I not point out the AGF content of the CfD's launch, and your COI with me, personally.
• You have expanded the CfD to several categories and counting, yet when I fielded bulk RMs "procedural" objections were raised....and most of those RMs done individually, other than yours and DavidLeighEllis' were closed contrary to mounting consensus and also, as in the CfD, by ignoring votes and also view stats;
• you made false claims that SOURCES says that only GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar should be used for googles; in fact it says no such thing. TITLE/AT was invoked on the RMs that went in "my" favour (i.e. according to the integrity of the title per policy and also per actual sources) and waved at COMMONNAME as if it somehow bypassed PRECISION and CONCISENESS.
• your resistance to actually debate the evidence provided but instead lecture me on particulars that you demand (they were already provided, I'm convinced you didn't actually read what I posted, as you have before elsewhere) is proof of your AGF in this matter, as is the targeting of a category I created minutes after I created it in the wake of your unilateral and peremptory block, during which you "went after" some of the remaining RMs and gave them "negative closures"....... this is politics, and "in politics, optics is everything. You claiming neutrality and "UNINVOLVED" is laughable.
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack.....
• Move Review is not about issues, it is all about wikiquette; pointless for me to go there, the negative accusations/judgments fielded by you and others here will only resurface there while the issues and guidelines go undebated; an RfC as noted by CBW elsewhere is only about single guidelines as they apply to single articles; so that's not the place to go either as in all cases various policies and guidelines, not just one, apply; RfM maybe, but to me the RfC/U being mumbled about here is just more victimization while the issues remain undebated.
• in the case of the CfD you wave at a convention about political geographic units that, as noted by an "oppose" vote (and also in my points about the different systems of political geography/regionalization within BC), are ORIGINALRESEARCH on the one hand and RECENTISM on the other. There is no policy or guideline supporting your nomination and its expansion; there is only IDONTLIKE IT and your very evident "get Skookum1" attitude and tone of "debate".
• your failure to address evidence and your ignorance of the complete texts of the guidelines you presume to cite, and then rant about my supposed lack of coherence, is just "more of the same" and recognizable in style as similar to the stonewalling and POV forking going on at NCL and NCET; denial, misrepresentation, condescension, pontification, pretending something someone says doesn't make sense or is relevant, and ongoing demeaning comments about my writing (and my personality) you refuse to (or are unable) to read or logically process.
• I agree with those who say I should stay away from this bearpit and proceed with my work, which I have been doing; but to see the ongoing condemnation and what seems like provocation requires me to clarify the full context of this situation, and point out why your frustrating behaviour does call into question your motives and your very evident AGF towards me. I have contemplated an RfA on you, or an RfC/U, because of your behaviour overall, and your refusal to acknowledge policy or evidence while you continue to drum up hostility towards me. But I dislike process, obviously, and just wanted to be left alone to work on articles; then you came at me with a CfD without any substance behind it whatsoever.
• No doubt you will pronounce this as a rant to avoid having to answer to your behaviour and your violations of titling policy and more. Ranting about me, and provoking me with non sequitur questions and your refusal to acknowledge relevant citations and examples as relevant, point to you being unfit to even comment about "proper discussion" and also the shallow context of your CfD, which as I have said there is vexatious and disruptive. As with Bushranger, I'm not the problem here....I'm a contributing editor finding myself interfered with by people who, to me, have been harassing and demonizing me. When that gets pronounced a "persecution complex", it's just more AGF and NPA and amateur psychiatry masquerading as "proper behaviour".
• for knowing the material and the sources, and for being the one who built the mountain and geography categories, I have been wrongly accused of OWN. What I see instead is people who try to OWN Wikipedia, even referring to their opinions with the royal "we", and generally behaving so as to not encourage contributing editors or give them credit where credit is due, but to control them and, if they don't submit to hectoring and lecturing and AGF comments, propose to get rid of them. All because you have a problem with not being willing or able to understand more text than your impatience or inability can tolerate. And you make a personal issue of it, and have closed CfDs and RMs on the basis of those prejudices towards me. That is "not according to the spirit of the guidelines, and violates the every wikiquette you wrap yourself in while violating it with nearly every post you make in response to me.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, you have a long set of complaints about a number of editors, of whom I am one. You make serious allegations against many of them, alleging all sorts of misconduct. The curious thing is that in most cases, it seems to be only you who complains of persecution by them. As I noted above, several uninvolved editors have suggested that you step back and consider why it is that you alone find all these alleged miscreants on your case, and consider what you can do differently to change the situation. So far, I don't see any sign of you doing that.
  You have a few choices in how you can deal with this.
  One option is to continue to post about all your grievances in every forum available to you: ANI, user talk pages, Jimbo's talk, XFDs, RMs, your own talk. That takes up a lot of your time, and maybe it is satisfying to you to air your grievances, but it doesn't change anything. So you remain frustrated, and you also frustrate other editors who want to discuss only the matter in hand. When they complain, you then add them to the list of editors out to get you.
  Another option is for you to use established processes to review decisions which you don't like. WP:MR exists to review whether move requests were closed correctly, and WP:DELREV has the same role for CFD. If you list closures at those reviews, you can explain exactly why you consider the closes to be flawed, and you concerns will be assessed by uninvolved editors. Those reviews are not (as you wrongly claim) about wikiquette; they are about whether the discussion was closed correctly. However, you have apparently written off the review process without even trying it.
  You could open an RFC/U about any editor (including an admin) whose conduct you find problematic. There you will plenty of other editors ready to review your concerns. But instead you denounce process and say that you "just wanted to be left alone to work on articles".
  Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Editors discuss content and processes, review and critique each others contributions, and use established processes to resolve issues where they can't agree. Why do you expect to contribute to a collaborative environment and be "left alone"? Solitary writing is a fine thing, but it's not how wp works.
  Wikipedia is not a battleground. To avoid it turning into a battleground, there are a wide range of dispute resolution processes. You choose to neither use those processes, nor to let go and move on from the things which you feel have been unfair. Instead you bring every conflict with you wherever you go, such as denouncing RM closes in a CFD discussion. (That neither helps the CFD make a good decision, nor changes the RM outcome, nor reduces stress on you). That's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack..... And this, right here, summarises the problem with Skookum1's behavior in a nutshell: the suggestion that an editor consider mentoring to better work within Wikipedia's process being considered equivilant to suggesting an editor is mentally deficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from the personal attack, Skookum's comment also displays a rejection of good faith. Despite repeated complaints about the disproportionate time and effort required to read extreme verbosity and off-topic digressions, Skookum1 assumes that the complaint is bad-faith misrepresentation of a lack of ability. The guideline WP:TPYES is very clear: "Be concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You summarize the situation well, BHG. I think this is a problem of collaboration. Unless an editor has a topic ban, there is nothing preventing any editor from working on any article or project, whether they are an expert or newbie. We don't get to choose who edits which articles, who comments on an AfD or CfD discussion, who votes on an RfA. Every editor, no matter how productive or how long they've been editing, has to deal with this lack of control. Ideally, out of diverse opinions and approaches come stronger articles and better decisions. When things are not ideal, well, like you said, there is always dispute resolution. Liz 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc: This isn't for a punishment. Every time this problem appears on the board not only does Skookums not curb their behavior they continue it on the board discussing the inappropriate attacks. I would suggest indef off the bat but I do believe that people can be reformed (otherwise I would have to give up entirely on the human race) and I am hoping that a month restrictions would make the user realize "Oh hell, they are serious." Then maybe we would see some actual improvement in behavior. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Solution

This is about Wikipedia Categories?? Not WP:BLP nor POV nor RS nor article content? Between this and the Amanda_Filipacchi#Wikipedia_op-ed categorization fiasco, I wonder whether they're worth the aggravation. (I'm reminded of an Emo Phillips comedy routine about schisms: text here, 1:17 youtube video.)

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [10], "solutions" (such as blocks) that are as likely as not to lead to their departure from the project are not actual solutions.

On the other, BHG stalking his edits post-block isn't ideal. While technically not against the rulz -- WP:INVOLVED is wikilawyerishly admin action after editorial engagement -- it violates the spirit of strict separation between an individual's admin and editorial roles. Call it WP:DEVLOVNI -- backwards involved. It's important to the gestalt of pedia that authority been seen as impersonal.

So how about a two parter:

• BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 852 admins and 121,930 users, surely it can fall upon someone else to Cfd categories if they're not quite right?)
• Skookum1 agrees to keep their Wikipedia: space posts less than 2000 characters and stop the personalization of disputes. NE Ent 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I appreciate the problem-solving spirit of your suggestion, but I'm not so sure it works.

First, the constraint on Skookum1 doesn't achieve much, because even one post of 2000 characters is grossly excessive in most discussions, and Skookum1 could easily evade even that generous limit by simply making multiple posts, as he often does. I'm not sure how to define a limit, because sometimes posting relevant evidence requires length. This is where I think that a mentor could help him to craft more concise and focused replies.

Your suggestion that he stop the personalization of disputes is a valuable one, and would certainly help. However, he also needs to be constrained to discussing the narrow issue in hand, rather than using each discussion to air his wider grievances.

As to me, I certainly wasn't "stalking" Skookum1; I was looking at his contribs to see the extent of his complaints about me. Since he chosen not to use any of the formal dispute-resolution or review processes (or to ping me when mentioning me), it is the only way to find out where I am the subject of complaint.

Along the way I spotted an odd-looking category, so I examined it. I can see why it is possible to read that CFD nomination as some sort of personal thing, but I just ask editors to look at the grounds for the nomination. This category of rivers was not parented in any other category of rivers, and did not appear to fit into any wider categorisation scheme; the geohpysical regional basis of it is at best diffusely documented.

I would be happy in principle to make a clearer separation between my admin role and my long-standing interest in categories, and thereby ignore Skookum1's category edits in future. If my good faith attempt to open a discussion about a category is seen as blurring lines, then it evidently had an unintended bad effect. I don't share NE Ent's optimism about categories being generally well-scrutinised, but am happy to leave that aside.

My reservation about this is not for me, but that I think it sets an unfortunate precedent. So far as I can see, any editor who has challenged Skookum1's edits or proposals gets accused at length of bad faith. In a long series of RMs, editors who expressed views different to Skookum1's were denounced ferociously; where his opponents agreed with each other, they were labelled as cabals.

I fear that this is setting off on a path where Skookum1 seeks restraints on other editors rather than learning to work collaboratively and follow WP:TPG. That's just pushing the problem down the road, and impeding the normal scrutiny which editors apply to each others work. Skkoum1's repeated demand to "leave me alone" just isn't viable in a collaborative environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: I'm not going to bother commenting more here today, it's the usual one sided rants and (as with Neotarf below) cherrypicked examples, all with AGF as their theme, but I would like to point out I just ran a word count on BHG's post immediately above - 450 words=2,623 characters - while her very editorialized and misrepresentative "hostile close" at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 is 537 words=3,249 characters - longer than some CfD/RM posts she pronounced TLDR as an excuse not to read them (when it was pointed out she shouldn't be using TLDR on discussion boards, she went and dug out a "behavioural guideline"). And what is going on at the CFD is not "normal scrutiny", it is groundless and not normal, but as noted COI/AGF in origin and targeted; disavowals of that are made, but the refusal to acknowledge evidence provided (or in the inability to read/digest it) is what it is. The claim by Neotarf below that my problem is with "every person" [I interact with] is just more typical conflation and misrepresentation and attack-mode "IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1", and the rants here and in other threads about numbers of characters per post overloading wikipedia's servers are ironic; it's fruitless and venal and often mean discussions here and elsewhere that are taking up far more space.....and I know from the BCGNIS template dispute long ago that Jimbo and the MWF told the code-writers to write as if t hey had unlimited space.....so what's the big deal about actual text, or is code more important than words and meanings. You want shorter posts from me? Well, if people weren't stonewalling and tossing NPA/AGF grenades in my path, that would help a lot. I also of course support an interaction ban, and feel it should Bushranger as his own behaviour is demonstrably hostile and his own use of "walls of text" while complaining about mine in the Squamish CfD where he used TLDR as a BLUDGEON, while citing BLUDGEON, is every bit as hypocritical and AGF and destructive and became the focus of BHG's invocation of TLDR to reject that CfD (even though TLDR is not to be used in discussions (it's about articles) without condescending to examine the evidence provided, or acknowledge support votes either.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, that's classic straw man stuff. I have never cited TLDR against any of your posts. I have repeatedly pointed you towards the behavioural guideline WP:TPYES, which says "be concise". Have you even read WP:TPYES? The problem is not server overload; the problem is editor overload, when discussions are filled with off-topic rambles.

You dispute some closes; time to put up or shut up. If you dispute them, open a move review or deletion review. If you choose not to use the established routes to review them, stop whining about them.

As to the evidence you provided at CFD, I question the significance of some of it. That's a normal part of a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any interaction ban, as one is not necessary. What is necessary is that Skookum1 accept that his behavior has not been within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, instead of continuing to insist it's everyone else's fault, agree to stop trying to accuse others of the behavior he engages in, accept that people disagreeing with him is not attacking him, and agree to engage other editors in a civil and constructive manner even when they disagree with him. I would like to poit out that I have not provided "walls of text" as claimed by Skookum1, nor have I been "demonstratably hostile": I request that Skookum1 provide diffs to support these claims or cease making them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it puzzling, to say the least, how someone who has never interacted with this user can have "attack-mode DONTLIKESKOOKUM1" secret motivations. Whatever. If all of these diffs that other editors have provided are "cherry-picking", then where are the threads that show this user being able to focus on the topic and engage in constructive collaboration? Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil? A more philosophical question--how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar? I consider that highly unlikely. Are we looking at some recent problem--maybe the editor is getting burned out? Maybe it's time to voluntarily step back and take a breather. Skookum. Dude. You're in Ko Samui, and you're wasting your time arguing on Wikipedia? Go to the beach. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do, every day....it's 50 yards from my porch. And as for being burned out, what's burning me out is the endless attacks on my personality and writing; I'm not burned out for real Wikipedia work, only finding my time eaten up by defending myself from persistent AGF/NPA attacks and this ongoing witchhunt. This hyperbole is AGF in the extreme - "Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil?", and also is a false imputation, as can be seen by those who have shown support for me and the areas which I am working without being treated as I have been here, and in the obstructionist behaviour and hostile closures of RMs and CfDs. This line "how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar" is just "more of the same". This user has contributed huge amounts to titles/articles and also to discussions of all kinds, including weather NPA/AGF accusations on various titles and topics; your pretense that I have "stayed under the radar" i.e. escaped official harrassment is equally specious and also confrontational and is "incitement" of yet more. I'd rather work on real material than have to defend myself against campaigns to get rid of me; I'm not alone in that sentiment, as a glance at various other witchhunts and rants about "walls of text" (while committing same) elsewhere on this board and in its archives. Why don't you go write some articles (since you can't go the beach) and drop the axe-grinding and pitchfork-wielding as you are doing here? I'm not the one being disruptive, but my work is being disrupted and obstructed ("tendentious editing") on a regular basis, including here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So where are your diffs, your uncherry-picked examples of where you are focusing on the topic, and assuming good faith of other editors, rather than making unsupported accusations? —Neotarf (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To User:NE Ent, this AN/I was not initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl; it was initiated by User:The Bushranger. I initiated the previous AN/I of Skookum1. While problems have arisen from categories, they also include personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [11], [12], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@NE Ent: As Uyvsdi points out, I raised this - not because of verbosity (indeed, in the current CfD there was marked improvement from the concerns that had arisen for me in the previous one that's relevant), but because of the personal attacks, particularly the blistering ones unleashed when a caution that a trip down NPA Road was being taken was delivered. Regardless of categories, the personal attacks, inability to accept dissenting viewpoints, and assumptions of bad faith to the point of reading attacks that aren't even there into statements (i.e. the repeated vehement insistience that I raised this ANI to get him banned) are the problem here. 150K of discussion on a single topic can be productive - but it has to be made in a productive fashion, and that is where the problem is here. Neither of us want to lose a productive contributor: quite the opposite. But a productive contributor must be willing to contribute collegially, or at the very least to be willing to accept dissenting viewpoints and remain calm and even enjoyable to discuss content with, even when opposite sides of the issue, as long as the bear doesn't get poked; Skookum1 has shown little sign of being willing to do so, no bear-poking required. All that's needed here is for a simple, good-faith statement that an attempt will be made to keep discussions, regardless of length, on the content and not the contributor or the contributor's motive in the discussion, and the drama will be over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific request Bushranger made was I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, (about the personal stuff), and I think this proposal includes that. While not discounting the points made above (by BHG and Uyvsdi), they're moot unless agree Skookum buys into or is willing to at least discuss the proposal, so I'd prefer to wait for their response before I comment further. NE Ent 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal does not address the overwhelming bulk of the problems, so is not a solution. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Which is? (i.e What is "the bulk of the problems")? NE Ent 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To recap, they are "personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It is not just one or two people, or just admins, it is anyone who comes in contact with this user. For example see the personal attacks on this thread. People who volunteer their time for the project should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse. They will either leave or complain. If you try to solve the problem by merely getting rid of any editors who object to personal attacks, you're gonna be dealing with this problem for a looooong time. —Neotarf (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Skookum1

Please look at this edit by Skooukm1, at 0700 UTC today. It's his most recent contribution to the discussion, and it is a mixture of personal attack and misrepresentation, which distorts any debate. Responding to this sort of thing is time-consuming and verbose.

It was made in response to my original nomination, which said in full: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything. All the 6 pages currently in the category are already in other categories of river-by-political-geography. That nominator's rationale has not been amended or added to.

Skookum's reply is: That's an outright falsehood/distortion but all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region; only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them; the Keta is in Alaska but was newly-created and has not yet had Alaskan p.g. units added; your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities; there are no municipalities in this region of BC, other than tiny Stewart at the southern end.

The 6 pages then in the category were Craig River, Iskut River, Keta River, Lava Fork, Ununk River, Whiting River. (In each case I have linked to the version at the time of nomination).

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

1. "an outright falsehood/distortion"
   Very harsh words, but possibly justifiable if true. However, they are demonstrably false.
2. "all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region"
   A personal attack, particularly when I had explicitly asked for clarification of anything I had missed.
3. "only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them".
   This is demonstrably untrue: Craig River, Iskut River, Ununk River, Whiting River were all in Category:Rivers of British Columbia. Lava Fork was in Category:Creeks of British Columbia. Keta River was in Category:Rivers of Alaska. I had referred to "river-by-political-geography". BC is a province of Canada; it is a Canadian political geographic unit, so all 5 rivers in BC did have Canadian political geographic units.
4. "your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities".
   I made no reference to boroughs or municipalities. How can an argument be made irrelevant on the basis of points neither asserted nor alluded to?

Now we have at the top of the CFD debate, a personal attack based on a false representation of the nominator's rationale, and an assumption of bad faith. How much more of this is to be tolerated? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just stop following Skookum, please. Bushranger and BHG have problems with Skookum, and the reverse, and all of them know it. Then stop following Skookum's categorization work and stop opening CFDs and stop opening ANIs and new sections of ANI. Leave it to other editors and time to have perfection in categories worked out. There is no benefit to wikipedia from the provocation going on. --doncram 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So the response to personal attacks should be allow the attacker to drive other editors away from topics where the attacker chooses to work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I read above, skookum was doing new, independent work, and it is the followers sparking contention, i.e. being "attackers" in a general usage sense (probably not in the wikipedia jargon of "personal attack"; in wikipedia we too much allow deeply incivil attacking to go on and then castigate those who react to provocation, saying they are using personal attacks). From what I read above, it was not skookum entering an area where others were working already and opening contention. --doncram 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a definition of "attack" which doesn't fit with any policy I know of. It also misrepresents the nature of the CFD, which was explicitly framed as a question about whether an apparently new form of categorisation was appropriate.

If Doncram's view was accepted, most CFD discussions wouldn't happen, because they relate to categories identified by editors who approach them as a piece of categorisation rather than as a particular topic where they routinely work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To BHG, I don't know about "most" CFDs, but I do know that many AFDs and probably CFDs are in fact attacking in nature. It depends upon apparent motive and perceptions between editors. If there was indeed some past history of conflict, it seems reasonable that Skookum could perceive this CFD to be an attack. It was not a neutral discussion, it was a proposal to delete categories Skookum was setting up. It rambled on with more accusations (of "disrupting" Wikipedia somehow by Skookum separately creating more categories, of Skookum supposedly violating wp:Canvas, and more) that seems like badgering. It was as if Skookum could not dare set up some reasonable-sounding categories without advance permission from one editor. If one editor wants to question an initiative that an experienced editor is proceeding with, do it mildly, literally ask a question at a Talk page or something, and consider whether it couldn't be raised in an RFC eventually, months or years later. It seems confrontational and unnecessary to immediately open a proposal to delete work in progress, and yes that is a kind of attack. And even without me knowing about past history, all the other charges in the CFD plus the opening of this ANI seem to confirm that it was personal, in truth, or at least that it was very reasonable for Skookum to perceive it to be personal.

Speaking not especially about this incident, but about others, Wikipedia would be a lot better if we had a proper process to stop followers who have become perceived by a target to be bullying, from continuing to follow and poke. I do not understand how some editors who know they are being perceived as hurtful and bullying, nonetheless choose to continue with the following and bullying-appearing activities. Avoid the perception of bullying. If you know you are hurting someone, be humane and stop. Let it go, let someone not perceived to be a bully in the situation raise a question some other way later, if indeed anything ever needs to be discussed. Again, I really do not know the parties and the history in this case, so I am not speaking about parties in this case so much. But, it is obvious to me that contending against quite reasonable-seeming categories with only lame "reasons" or with attacks on other fronts like claims of personal attacks or whatever, is really really not helpful for building wikipedia or for making Wikipedia a nice place. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doncram: I have always understood WP:BRD to be quite fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Any edit is open to challenge, and it is then discussed. That's a crucial part of the whole collaborative process by which content is scrutinised

There are broadly two ways of discussing an issue. The first is one-to-one discussion; the second is at a centralised location, such as XFD, which exists for discussing various types of content.

There are multiple advantages to having those discussions in a centralised venue. It gets wider input to the discussion, and it ensures that the discussion is archived in a place where it will be easy to find in future.

With categories, there are great advantages to having those discussions sooner rather than later. If the categorisation scheme stays, those building it know that they are on the right track. If the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then everyone avoids a lot of wasted work.

Categories are different to articles. Articles largely stand or fall on their own merits, but categories are often part of a much wider system. Geographical categories work as intersections between consistent sets, where we have a broadly consistent set of topics intersecting with a broadly consistent geographical framework (Category:Roads in New York and Category:History of New York parallels Category:Roads in Yorkshire and Category:History of Yorkshire). Introducing a new geographical framework creates a set of categories which don't fit in that structure. Far from being "lame" (as you put it), it seems to me to be much better to have a centralised discussion at an early stage about the viability of the proposed new geographical framework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG for responding. But you didn't start a centralised, neutral discussion in a leisurely RFC or conversationally at a WikiProject talk page. You started a CFD which called for relatively immediate deletion of the categories that Skookum had set up, which is simply not friendly or neutral. You called for stopping Skookum from continuing (you labelled other Skookum edits creating categories to be "disruptive", while I really do not see how they could be viewed as disruptive), and seemed to be seeking to criminalize Skookum's actions on various not-central-to-the-content/category "issue" that could be discussed. And you were forcing immediate discussion, when it was not convenient for Skookum. Perhaps some discussion, saying you think the larger implications oughta be considered sometime, could have led to productive discussion. And the target could be asked and have opportunity to explain his intentions, whether they were limited to covering just the rivers of British Columbia for example, and then would he agree that the time would be ripe to call for a larger discussion, rather than interrupting and freezing the productive edits immediately, as if there was some huge crisis (not the case, no downside present for Wikipedia readers). And, it was you in particular who was pushing, and while I am not familiar with the background, I gathered that you and Skookum had previous confrontations. IMHO the wikipedia policy should be that an administrator/editor who previously played a policing/attacking/monitoring role that came to be perceived as harassing should be discouraged/disqualified from doing that again...there could be a random assignment of another administrator or just leave it to chance for anyone else to pick up a new issue, but whoever was involved previously and is perceived as being bullying should not be the one. Some one else oughta be appointed, if there is actual real damage to readers going on. (Again please forgive me that I am not completely clear on whether a characterization of past interaction like that applies here with you and Skookum.) One reason for such a rule is that a previously involved policeperson has an obvious apparent-to-the-target conflict of interest or bias, that the previous enforcer-type may be more likely to want to prove the target is a criminal, to justify their past action. And whatever a perceived bully says is quite reasonably taken differently by the target than the same words from a perceived-to-be uninvolved other editor. This is not to suggest that any violator of Wikipedia policies should be allowed to disqualify whoever they want, merely by falsely claiming bullying. There need to be some standards. However I perceived the discussion above and at the CFD to indicate that there was evidence suggestive of appearance of bullying. (Standards of evidence oughta be defined somewhere...I have some ideas).

Also, and this is a huge point that I have thought a lot about, you reference wp:BRD guideline. From past experience, i STRONGLY believe that BRD guideline ought to be clarified to express whose edit is the Bold vs. whose is the Revert, when one editor is creating a bunch of stuff, believing it to benign, and another editor follows. I strongly believe it works best if the creating editor is understood by default to be creating, not boldly doing anything. And a following editor is doing the Bold step, if they interrupt and delete. So the creating editor is given some deference, and may Revert, and go on (and it should all be discussed at a suitable Talk page of course, to exchange views and so on). It should NOT be understood that any following editor gets the right to call their edit deleting to be the Revert and claim power to call any reversion by the creating editor to be edit warring, past BRD. It simply is horrible policy, to empower anyone/everyone to interrupt and have precedence over a productive creating editor, who really probably does have a good rationale of what they are doing. Later, eventually, in an established article, the BRD process would work normally. BRD is written about bringing change productively to established articles, it is not written properly to apply to new works. Wikipedia is not well served by overly empowering following critics; Wikipedia is well served by empowering creators with some respect, some deference, some "ownership" in a good way, for a time (definitely not forever, but the creator should be given some space and some power for some amount of time).

So, BHG, i don't know where you were going with mention of BRD, whether you wanted to claim Skookum was in violation of that, but my sentiment would be that a) Skookum was creating editor and has right to call a following edit to be a Bold, unexpected change that Skookum can fairly Revert, and then, yes, b) Skookum should indeed participate in discussion eventually, but there should be no rush and the discussion should be in a neutral venue and not with ultimatums of imminent deletion and other negativity. --doncram 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doncram: You are entitled to your view of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD as "horrible policy". If you want to rewrite or delete WP:BRD, then seek a consensus to do so, and let me know how you get on. But in the meantime, please don't berate me for working within long-established policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. I did not attack. I made a !vote in the CfD, speaking civilly, and that only got a questioning response - it was when I cautioned Skookum1 that he was over the personal-attack line in his 'discussions' with BHG that I got blistered. If I'm "following" him it's because he continued attacking me at the CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To Bushranger, you may well have not meant an attack, but by Skookum's reaction that editor did seem to perceive it that way, and it was adding on to other I-am-guessing-to-be-reasonable belief by Skookum that there was unjustified attacking type stuff going on. So, back off, say it is not important to you, let the editor proceed. My humble opinion. We don't have enough consideration for avoiding the appearance of bullying, and we don't generally have enough appreciation for a target's opinion. Frankly, if someone says they are being bullied and it is not incredibly absurd to think they really mean that, and they are not doing it for some crazy commercial selfish advantage (not the case here), then don't dispute that, let the target say that. It should not be a crime (a personal attack) for someone to say the truth that they feel they are being treated unfairly, that others are seeming to bully. If they perceive it, it is real. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"say it is not important to you": This is, unfortunatly, exactly what I did, before anything else - and I got attacked for it. Saying that he believe he's being treated unfarily is not a personal attack; saying that other editors are mentally deficient, and making up accusations out of whole cloth, are (claiming, multiple times, that I started this ANI to get him banned, and also his statement that I "posted lengthy diatribes against me" - it should be noted that whenever Skookum1 has been asked to provide diffs for his claims there is no response). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, so the $100,000 question is this: Skookum apparently is here to build the encyclopedia. However, part of that "building" process is the community-nature, and the relationships involved. How do we convince Skookum that content-building AND playing nicely with others is the only way forward? What will it take? A topic ban? A short block? Other restrictions? Their response to anything is to immediately personalize-and-attack, and that's not acceptable behaviour the panda ₯’ 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's the $100,000 question on, like, every ANI thread. "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly believe it needs to be something that will make the person take stock. I suggested a one month block above per this mindset, though no one else seems to be weighing in other than doc that cast allusions to me doing it as some sort of punishment. I am a pessimest so I don't think one month will change skookums attitude but I am someone that gives the benefit of doubt. Hell if Skookums could just make attempts at not attacking others and actually working with the community I will happily withdraw the suggestion. However, as far as I can tell and see, I believe that skookums will reject that out of hand because the editor still sees their behavior as acceptable and not an issue. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Skookum1 for 12 hours for the personal attack noted above, and am considering closing the CFD under IAR, with a recommendation to revisit it in a month if the filing parties still feel it's necessary. The categories won't hurt anyone if they stay for a month, and Skookum1 has made coherent and well founded arguments in their defense (amongst the other stuff) on the CFD proposal.

If anyone are on good terms with Skookum1 and think they'll listen to you, please engage with them and try to get them to back off from personalizing things once the block expires. I and others have said so here and on their talk page but to no good effect so far. I desperately desire not to drive Skookum1 away entirely, but the sniping has to stop. Please assist in social pressure to reform their behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from what I see, Skookum wouldn't listen to a free pair of top-of-the-line Beats headphones the panda ₯’ 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: I would not oppose an early closure of the CFD, so long as it is done in some form which doesn't prejudice the possibility of reopening it a later date. There is some good discussion in there (on all sides), but there are also too much other stuff to make it easy for other editors to follow, so an early closure may be a suitable step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the CFD as an administrative No Consensus / IAR close, with a recommendation that it not be refiled for a month to allow for the discussion to cool down. This explicitly does not prevent a refiling a month from now (or sooner, if you ignore my advisory waiting period, which has no policy-based authority other than please for the love of god let it calm down first ...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Big mistake! Skookum1 will simply continue to create more categories requiring more cleanup if consensus is to not have them. Are you going to cleanup the mess? If you want to do that, you have to block Skookum1 from creating categories for the same time period. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

Brrrrr, it's snowing here. Forget I said anything... —Carrite

Perhaps the solution would be mutual interaction bans between Bushranger and Skookum on the one hand; and Brown Haired Girl and Skookum on the other. Skookum needs to be more nice and these two need to leave him alone so that he can work without feeling stalked. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose - It's quite clear that Bushranger and BHG aren't the problem, and Skookum is, so unless you plan on instituting an IBAN on every editor Skookum gets into conflict with in the future, this is not the solution. The solution is for Skookum to alter his uncollegial and uncollaborative behavior, and fast, before a block or ban comes his way. BMK (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose- Obviously the actions of Skookum are the problem here, not the reactions to the actions. If those editors who really want this to end without some kind of sanction of Skookum, they should try to make sure he stops this kind of behavior before uninvolved watchers of this unnecessary drama start weighing in. Dave Dial (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose I sympathize with Brown Haired Girl et al and am in fact monitoring this board because of another editor whose tactics are remarkably similar to Skookum's (so much so that he dropped a message of encouragement on that other editor's talk page). Such editors can have a toxic effect that counteracts whatever other good they do. I don't care if they have 100 or 100,000 edits. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as proposed subject. I respect Carrite as an editor but I'm dissapointed in him for implying that I'm "following" or "stalking" him. No such thing has taken place. I saw a CfD, I !voted in the CfD, and then (seeing the quality of discourse in the rest of the discussion) I posted a caution that 'You don't want to do that, Dave'. And got absolutely blistered with personal attacks in return. (Diffs in OP.) As I said above, an interaction ban is not what is needed here: Skookum1 agreeing to be WP:CIVIL is. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as proposed subject. So far as I can see, Skookum1's list of perceived "enemies" includes at least The Bushranger, BrownHairedGirl, Uyvsdi, and Kwamikagami. Plenty of others have been the subject of his personal attacks, but those seem to be the ones who he is most vociferously denouncing at the moment. AFAICS, none of these 4 editors has accumulated other "enemies" in the same way. Which is more likely: that these each of these 4 editors have jointly or separately decided to persecute Skookum1? Or that one editor (Skookum1) has a persistent problem interacting with editors who disagree with him? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Are you kidding? Don't stop the bad behaviour, but topic-ban people who have attempted to address it? I started to say that Brown Haired Girl's been entirely reasonable in her dealings with Skookum (I haven't been following Bushranger), but I take that back: She's been unreasonably tolerant of him. The only reason I haven't complained about his atrocious behaviour is that it's so ludicrous I can no longer take it seriously. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose this is not the answer. The editor at fault should be banned but unfortunately the more edits you have here, the lesser the chance of you being held accountable for your appalling behaviour. In my mind this drives away more good editors than any other issue facing the project Flat Out let's discuss it 23:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as a dangerous and counterproductive solution designed to close this particular ANI thread but which fails to address the larger problem. Skookum has a long history of interacting very poorly with anyone who disagrees with him. Throwing up interaction bans against two editors acting in good faith because Skookum threw a hissyfit will only result in his throwing similar invective at anyone who challenges him in the expectation that similar interaction bans would be entered. Resolute 23:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

As the admin who blocked Skookum1, I would like to request ANI's assistance in reducing tensions here.

Skookum1 feels, rightly or wrongly, that the ANI episode and criticism elsewhere was a form of ganging up on them. This has clearly been driving their behavior.

I believe that everyone is now aware that a wide contingent of editors feel that there's a significant problem here. The above threads show a consensus on that point, but not unanimous by any means. I would like to note for the record that the message is understood and received by uninvolved admin (hopefully, admins).

I also believe that Skookum1 is widely felt, including by some of the commenters in the emerging consensus, to be a valuable content creator and editor.

I would like to request that we attempt to simply de-escalate from here. No good outcome is served by further poking. I would like to archive the sections above later this evening.

Skookum1 clearly felt that the threads above were contributing to the ganging up, and said so above and on their talk page and on the CFD. Ideally they can just walk away from the discussions and leave it be.

I would also like to see if anyone with experience mentoring would be willing to engage with Skookum1 and see if they can assist in cooperative tension reductions.

If there is significant objection to archiving I won't do so, but hope everyone will take a deep breath and let that be the outcome.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"This has clearly been driving their behavior." Skookum1's nonstop personal attacks against any user with an opposing opinion dates back months prior to any AN/I. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger just happen to be the most recent recipients of Skookum1's unsubstantiated accusations of harassment and attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

endorse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't oppose a closure, but I will point out the behavior started well before any of the claimed 'ganging up' - it was a result of it. If it's felt it's best to kick the can down the road, though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better to kick the can down the road. Plenty of uninvolved admins are out there that can archive this. Procedure should be taken into account here. There are appeals in RL courts that succeed because procedure was not properly followed. "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. Doc talk 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - You two have each blocked the user and want to close the case. Let unbiased, uninvolved admins do it for you instead. Doc talk 03:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What would help to reduce tensions is if Skookum would stop with the personal attacks and walls of text. He has now been blocked for 4 days, and then for 12 hours ("de"-escalating blocks??), but even now is busy filling his talk page with--you guessed it--personal attacks and walls of text. On his talk page he refers to this as "in flow", or "managing multiple thoughts", or "in stream of consciousness mode". What to do. A mentor might help, if the user could find someone he trusts, but he would have to be the one to initiate this. He could also take a voluntary break--this can be a stressful time of year with the Songkran holidays, and with many expats in the region moving to cooler or drier climates. A couple of weeks exploring the qualities of Singha or Tiger with a closed browser might do wonders, and allow him to eventually return to tranquil editing. Again, he would have to be the one to agree to this. Might dispute resolution help, after a cooling off period? If nothing is done, or if the problem is merely postponed, the user will be lost to the project, and may even take some good editors down with him. —Neotarf (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand how this user could have been allowed to operate here for so long, with so many edits and so relatively few blocks (though they are increasing quickly), if he's such an extreme civility case with the "nonstop personal attacks". How can this be? How much have we really been slacking over these attacks until now?! Shame on all of us for letting it get this far, really. Doc talk 07:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, British Columbia geography is rarely an area of high conflict. Skookum is a better editor when he's left to edit on his own. His past conflicts (usually over politics) have often been short bursts without quite this level of ranting, and he's often taken a break before going too far. In this case, Skookum took the CFD extremely personally and that magnified what usually just simmers under the surface. And the dumb thing is, he needn't have reacted the way he did. The CfD itself was leaning on the keep side of no consensus. Resolute 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm all in favour of de-escalation, but this bullshit idea that the above thread is somehow "bullying" or "ganging up on" has to be nipped in the bud. The intent of ANI is to provide a forum (from Latin meaning "gathering place". In complex cases, multiple involved and uninvolved users discuss the situation to come up with a method of resolution. Hundreds of editors have this page watched, and ALL are permitted to comment based on their findings. As is often the case of extremely problematic users, the quantity of discussion is huge. As is often the case when the editor complained about plays WP:IDHT, the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a few notches. That is what Skookum needs to learn and understand - a broad swath of the community finds him to be pesky. The sheer quantity (or "gang") should tell Skookum just how many people he's pissed off. Look, if someone runs for town council election, and they get 1 vote, and 10,000 votes against them ... those 10,000 didn't "gang up" on them! Those 10,000 are independent voices - just like in ANI the panda ₯’ 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not defending Skookum1's "peskiness" for other users. It is what it is. I only care about his right to due process. The odds are stacked against him: and it interests me like F. Lee. Meh. Doc talk 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Doc9871: One of the persistent problems is Skookum1's own repeated refusal to follow due process. He disputes some RM and CFD closures I made. That's fine; any editor is entitled to disagree with a close, so we have move review and deletion review. Both review types are solely about whether the closure reflected due process.
  But Skookum1 refuses to use those review processes, and instead sounds off in multiple forums about the alleged unfairness of the closures (a lot of his posts here relate to them). What's with the concern about due process when Skookum1 refuses to use it? Where does that leave closers' rights to due process? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that except that he is in a decidedly different "process", with the blocks and all the negative attention. He is being labelled as a wiki-criminal, and the process I was referring to is the "wiki-criminal defense process". Tough gig! Doc talk 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Pursuing that "criminal" analogy, suppose X feels that the courts have treated them unfairly. In this particular system, they have an absolute right to appeal, without any cost, and with no need to seek leave to appeal. All they need to do is to ask the appeal court to review the earlier judgments. No need to prepare a brief, or attend the hearing (tho they ae free to do both if they want to).

Instead of taking that route, they enter other courts, disrupting proceedings by shouting about how they have been the victim of an awful injustice. In each case, they are told that they could appeal, and they still refuse. Eventually, some of the other courts start saying "this is contempt of court", and begin contempt-of-court proceedings to discuss sanctions available.

That's the sort of cycle we are in here. For "appeals court", we have move review and delrev. For "other courts" we have ongoing XFDs and RMs. For "contempt-of-court proceedings" we have ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. BHG, this is not at all a fair legal process, and you are absolutely wrong to imply that justice is free for a targeted person being criminalized in Wikipedia. The target is criminalized, dragged down, in an ANI proceeding, or in CFD or AFD, where the target does not enjoy participating and it is hugely demanding and cost-imposing. While it may be enjoyable, or is at least less repugnant, for the accuser(s). It is effectively way too easy, too free of cost, for the follower/critic/accuser(s) to open multiple "trials", imposing costs on a target in Wikipedia. In the U.S. legal system there are counters: a plaintiff has to pay fees, and incur legal costs that they may never recover, and they risk getting deemed by a judge to be frivolous/nuisance. In many civil and other courts a judge can rule the frivolous plaintiff to have wasted the defendant's time and the court's time, and to fine the plaintiff, even requiring the plaintiff to pay all the defendant's legal fees plus a further fine. It is absurd to suggest that this ANI court is free, or that DRV or other appeals courts are free for the target. --doncram 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) (p.s. BHG i replied above to your last posts above.)

ANI is an arduous process for anyone involved (and so ArbCom many times more so), but DRV and MR are lightweight for the petitioner. All they need to do is to write an opening statement, and let it roll. The person being held to account is the closer, not the petitioner (who can do more if they choose, but many don't).

In this case it would be a lot less work for Skookum1 to open move reviews than to continue writing at length about the alleged injustices in multiple forums. Not only would it provide an answer one way or another to some of his grievances, it would also allow other discussions to focus on the issue in hand, reducing stress on everyone including Skookum1.

The practice of breaking down problems and trying to fix them one at a time is a crucial tool for solving all sorts of problems. Not doing that is what leads to the patterns of conflict which come to ANI.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.

Similar processes are familiar to people writing in many other contexts. As a student, my writing was dissected twice a week in tutorials, by fellow-students briefed on how to find holes in my work. As a policy analyst, my colleagues and I performed destructive testing on every piece of writing any of us produced; we canned a significant chunk of each others work, and sent. As a journalist, every piece of work was dissected in an editorial conference, where justifying is existence and content was part of the job.

I think that one of the very big problems Wikipedia faces is that this sort of scrutiny is an essential part of quality control, but many enthusiastic editors lack experience of working in this way. We don't do enough to convey how important it is, or to assist editors in learning the techniques required. When I first started editing, every edit page used to warn editors with words something like "your contribution may be edited without mercy". Those words may have been a bit harsh, but it's a pity we no longer have something in a similar vein to remind contributors that we are not here as bloggers. We are collaboratively developing the world's most widely-read encyclopedia, and editors should expect that any contribution may be challenged, debated, modified, or even removed. Editors who just want to be "left alone" are in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You say: “I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.” However your actions do not support your words above since you seem to have tendency to pursue editors whom you disagree with at CFD to other areas of Wikipedia.

Here are a couple of examples:

• User_talk:Ottawahitech#Category:CNBC_women
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#What_sort_of_edits_are_acceptable_on_Scotiabank

XOttawahitech (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Nice try, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG.

My post about CNBC women was a warning[13] to you about your WP:IDHT problem, which was taking you into the tendentious editing territory. If you want to pursue this, I can set out the full history ... but for now, note that I reminded you afterwards[14] that the category was deleted, and that there was a consistent consensus against such categories.

As to WP:CANWP, I posted there because another editor started a new thread on my talk page, where they asked me as an admin to comment on a dispute. I replied on my talk about the policy issues, and as promised there I posted to WP:CANTALK explicitly noting that I had been asked to comment[15]. The issue in that case was that you were abusing a talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, to push your POV. I asked you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page[16]. You refused[17].

That's a series of boomerangs you have launched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: First I would like to thank you for letting me me know my feedback is important to you. I would also like to state that, even if it appears otherwise to you, I don’t believe that you are acting in bad faith, at least not intentionally. I think you are overworked, like most active admins on Wikipedia, and you just don’t have the time to check things out carefully before rushing to impose solutions.

You try to do too much, continuing to create hundreds of categories, while at the same time participating in discussion about deleting categories created by others (COI?), and branching out to other areas of adminship that involve blocking and “telling” off other editors. I don’t believe you take enough time to truly investigate situations before taking sides in disputes, but , at least in my book, that does not make you as bad as a few admins/established editors here who taunt, harass and stalk other editors on purpose strictly out of malice. I do hope you become cognizant the fact that your actions as an admin are highly visible, and as such contribute to the persecution of editors who happen to get caught in your path.

This is not the time and place to respond to accusations against me personally, but I would like to state that as far as WP:BOOMERANG ( a Wikipedia essay about editors who report others to Wikipedia notice boards) that in all my years at Wikipedia I have never reported anyone. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Stop being silly. The boomerang is that you piggybacked on this thread to make complaints about me, and simply highlighted your own misuse of a discussion forum for soapboxing, and your own habit of repeatedly creating categories of a type which you know there is a consensus to delete. Rather than retracting that, you try to shift the ground to a general slur. Not nice.

Indeed, my actions as an admin are highly visible. One of the consequences is that is some editors try to do what you have been doing, i.e. looking for some muck to throw. Enjoy that sport if you like, but you'd do better at if you took more time to figure out what you are actually launching. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't report anyone just tried to derail another discussion with your soapbox...same thing! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 16:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...why, exactly, are we using inflammatory and loaded words like "crimilizing" and comparing this to a criminal trial? The facts here are simple. Skookum1 has a well-established pattern of vehemently attacking editors who disagree with his positions, making clear and unambiguous personal attacks (calling them bigoted, stating they are mentally deficient, and etc. etc.). He also utterly refuses to accept that his behavior is unacceptable. This is not bullying, it is enforcing policy, and unless we want to send the message (yet again) that if you're a "content contributor" than even the Five Pillars don't apply to you, we need to do somthing about it, even if it's a sternly-worded last and final warning (which was, in fact, the original point of this ANI filing). And we absolutley need to avoid sending the message that an editor can get out of being sanctioned for flaunting policy by claiming that they're being "bullied". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Learning how AN/Is operate has been vaguely educational, but this is clearly going nowhere. While nonbinding, perhaps the suggestion of an RfC/U makes more sense, especially if a only warning or mentorship is being proposed. No editor thus far has been able to get through to Skookum1 that uncivil behavior is not acceptable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@Uyvsdi: This may be going nowhere. But whatever the decision (or non-decision) here, I strongly urge that those who have been opposing sanctions against Skookum1 to see if there is some way in which they can assist him to find a new way of working so that he can experience debates more positively. Call it mentorship, or helping hand, or a quiet word behind the scenes, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger has zero credibility regarding what does or doesn't constitutue unambiguous personal attacks ([...] stating they are mentally deficient [...]). And BrownHairedGirl, Skookum1's desire to "be left alone" isn't a rejection of the concept of fundamental WP content discussion with editor peers as you suggest, but obviously having his time & attention as voluntary expert contributor being sucked down a black hole through miserable, manufactured, demoralizing, demonizing complaints from editors miffed by him at some point then getting payback in cesspool let's-set-him-up-for-an-indef-block threads like this one. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Spookem1`s defense that he is being harassed is not going to stop him from being blocked, in my view. He should be blocked for his repeated, after-warning, Personal attacks. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but given your self-described status as a "Advanced stealth fighter in operation Wikipedia Enduring Freedom," you're not the guy I'm gonna be marching behind on this matter. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite It`s OK, I have no friends on wiki, I'm always giving points that no one agrees with. I'm used to being alone and respectfully told that I am not agreed with. Continuing on then: This user has been warned/blocked numerous times, he has been givin his chance and has not taken it (he is still committing Personal attacks), showing some sort of possible WP:NOTHERE intent, I recommend blocking. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If Skookum has valid grievances against other users, why has it not been brought to the proper forums, with diffs? This has been pointed out over and over. Without diffs, these are, at best, merely wild accusations, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks. —Neotarf (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, when Skookum1 is asked to provide diffs to back up accusations he is making, that particular thread of conversation abruptly stops. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs

@The Bushranger: You say above that User:Skookum1 has not provided diffs, but neither have you.

It appears that even though you are the one who started this this whole ani-thread you feel you are above providing support for your accusations. This is a mystery since your complaint is taking an enormous toll on the community, and to me at least, is looking more and more like a Witch-hunt than anything else. Your very short opening remarks talk vaguely about another ANI (which?) and alludes to behavior by Skookum1 which is not supported by one single diff. It seems that the whole basis for your complaint is that Skookum has rejected your “attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters”.

As an uninvolved editor it seems to me that you feel that Skookum1 should automatically defer to you. Since I have not had any(?) dealings with you I do not understand why you expect other editors to automatically defer to your suggestions.

Respectfully, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the diffs he provided in his opening statement?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As Obiwankenobi says, please re-read the opening statement for diffs. And if anybody wants specific further diffs from the thoroughly PA-laden CFD, all they have to do is ask and they shall receive, although it would only be a slight exaggeration to say there would be fewer diffs from that that did not have PAs. The previous ANI is here (and as it happens, also here from 2007, demonstrating that this is not a new problem and has only gotten worse). The accusation that I "expect other editors to automatically defer to [my] suggestions" is wholly unfounded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An attempt at a summary

Let me try again. (1) Everyone agrees that Skookum needs to start being nice fast or he is going to be out the door for disruptive behavior. (2) Everyone agrees that Skookum is a productive, expert content-writer who is here to build an encyclopedia. (3) Some people think Skookum feels persecuted, particularly in deletion discussions, and lashes out — a correctable situation; others think this behavior is a fundamental personality trait and that collaborative work is impossible for him. (4) Some people think this is already a lost cause; others think there needs to be some sort of active mentoring process to turn this downward spiral around. (5) While all agree that it is enormously annoying that this situation continues to continue, most people think that further blocking or banning sanctions are not justified at this time. Fair enough summary? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: I've been in touch with Skookum off wiki. He strikes me as rational, and no, the emails are not 20,000 words each. I'll volunteer as "behind the scenes advisor" if such is desired. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My question is: How long will we keep giving him more leash?! We should at least give him a final warning, because he has been given way more chances then he should get. It seems he can get away with no block or maybe a couple hour long block at best. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a child that is going to be impressed by "final warnings." He'll either figure out how to disagree with people without throwing cinderblocks or he won't. Obviously he doesn't have infinite time to start doing this... Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookums is not required to be nice. Hell be abbrassive all day, the line is only crossed when talking about other individuals either obliquely or directly. If the attacks on other contributers stop, it would be a huge step forward. That is the primary problem, though getting the individual to actually collaborate is also high on the list. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. WP:CIVIL is a policy, and a long-standing one. Civility involves a lot more than simply refraining from attacks. NPA would be a good start, but that alone isn't enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes but I have no known exampled of civility ever being something that gets someone banned since it is subjective. I have seen more than a few people at ANI for civility and those always putter out. I would like Skookums to be more civil but if we work on one thing at a time we might see improvements. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have tried reading Skookum's material. It's utterly exhausting. It's nothing but petty accusations against other editors. It goes on and on...and on some more. I don't what the solution is, but somebody's gotta make it stop. This situation has gotten completely out of hand. Two from one (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that many of the participants here want to see User:Skookum1 punished for “crimes” he allegedly committed on Wikipedia. I have to admit I am not familiar with every last detail of this saga (is anyone?), but I urge you all to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains in The Signpost to get a better grasp of what Skookum1 has done, is doing, and is trying to do on Wikipedia. I believe most people would find this an easy educational read. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  Ottawa, that's a bit of a red herring. I haven't seen anyone in this huge discussion deny that Skookum1 has made a significant contribution to content. The problem is that many others make significant contributions too, and since we don't work alone, editors need to interact civilly and discuss issues productively. Skookum1's aggressive personalisation of disagreement drives away other editors.
  User:Spike Wilbury summarised it succinctly above: "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: you said above that you value Skookum’s content contributions to Wikipedia. If so, then why did you nominate his categories for deletion (added to earlier comment on April 17 and on April 18 of 2014) as soon as he started working on them? According to your own rules at CfD this would force Skookum1 to stop work on any related category work while your nomination was in progress. Wouldn’t a rational editor conclude that you are trying to stop his work? XOttawahitech (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The use of loaded words does not help the discussion here. While it's absolutely true that Skookum1's content contributions are stellar, it's also true that he refuses to follow WP:CIVIL - not just a policy, but one of the Five Pillars - and makes increasingly vehement personal attacks against other editors when they disagree with him, to the point of attempting to drive them away from areas that he edits, that are both unfounded and that he will not or cannot substantiate. This is the problem, and this is what has to change, as civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  How obnoxious. From my direct experience with you, you're one of the least civil editors around, User:The Bushranger, you make your own personal attacks and accuse others constantly of WP:NPA. Your own behavior as admin is tendentious BATTLEGROUND while lecturing others about collegiality and pillars. You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent". You should get off your civility soapbox since you're no model. (And please stop wikilinking WP:CIVIL as though we are all idiots and need your gradeschooling.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  IHTS, please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks, please stop entirely making up things other editors did not say in order to attack them, and please also read WP:HOUNDING. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up. There are 1000 ways to be uncivil short of using foul language, and you're the master of many of them. (Example: four "please"s in your above paragraph, each prefacing false and hypocritical accusation.) The fact is if there are valid gripes about Skookum1 collegiality and/or editing behavior, RfC/U is →thataway. (As admin you should know that. But it is so much more expedient when you want an indef block to appeal for a "warning" here at the lynch-mob-board, huh!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  RFC/U is indeed thataway (and points for copying my writing style, another indication of your following my contributions for the purpose of attacking), but as this was (regardless of what you choose to believe) intended as a simple request for one uninvolved admin to issue a warning for one set of personal attacks before it snowballed out of control (mostly due to Skookum1's actions), it was not needed, and indeed I deliberately chose to avoid initiating an RFC/U out of respect for Skookum1 as I knew he would feel attacked if I did so. As for "writing things...not able to back up": "You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent"." Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to contained no crystal-balling and no mentioning of or reference to 'intent' [18]. From the last discussion, "Now you give excuses that you were busy or something...I'm not buying your "I was busy"". Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to did not even imply being "busy" as any reason for the delay in responding to you there [19]. Both of these are examples of your entirely making things up out of whole cloth in order to attack me: I do not know if there are more, because I am not following your pages or contribution history. Now as you cannot back up your accusations of "uncivil...false and hypocritical" behavior on my part, instead only making manufactured accusations and vague waves without diffs, I request, again, that you stop hounding my contributions in order to make unsubstantiated personal attacks upon me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  You're pathetic Bushranger, filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly, my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me. In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd. Why don't you tell the world again here, how the name-call of classic narcissist is *not* a personal attack. You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me" - I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue as you have only posted here addressing me, and I request you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some back-channel mentoring is an excellent idea. One possible way of managing the problem is a one comment limit on deletion discussions for a while. Would that help, do you think? Guy (Help!) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Probably not. He would just make the one comment (even if about 2000 bytes) on multiple message boards as in [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] instead of just at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for sanctions on Ihardlythinkso

I have attempted to adopt a water-off-a-duck's-back policy regarding the continued personal attacks and hounding in this discussion by Ihardlythinkso, however his most recent comment indicates that he is determined to continue to manufacture accusations that have zero basis in truth, personally attack me, and hound me (as evidenced by both his appearing here at ANI, and only in this one section of ANI, to attack me, and more notably his use of "RfC/U is →thataway" which is mocking my closing style of discussions here, something that indicates a search of my contribution history). At least three times now Ihardlythinkso has invented a charge against me, two of them involving words attributed to me that I did not say or imply: the "busyness" claim from the previous discussion regarding IHTS (His manufactured charge, what I actually said), claiming that I was "crystal-balling 'intent'" somehow (his claim, having no basis in what I actually said), and most recently "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me", which even if you don't count his first comment in this thread as "addressing [me]", this is (and was in reply to my reply to Ottawahitech, not IHTS). His personal attacks against me in this thread are clear ([25], [26], [27]) note that especially when he claims "Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up", and in return I responded with clear diffs and a request not to make further accusations without diffs, his response is further personal attacks without diffs.

I have disengaged from IHTS following the previous discussion, however IHTS refuses to disengage from me - and, in fact, claims that I am not disengaging from him - refuses to cease making personal attacks, without any evidence, to the point of making up things I did not say or do, and claiming that I do not substantiate my claims after I clearly have, and evidences hounding behavior while leaving edit-summaries, here at ANI of his comments aimed at me, of "creepy" and "putrid". And, after my request above for his latest baseless personal attack to be stricken, he responds by posting this at NE Ent's talk page (which, if he hadn't wikilinked my username and thus triggered the ping function, I would have been unaware of). I request that IHTS be sanctioned for this behavior, as it's obvious that he has no intention of stopping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of personal attacks and definite hounding since the individual popped into the conversation with a personal attack. I would suggest an IBAN, unless there are additional items to take into consideration (i.e. other IBANs). If anyone has better information I am open to changes to this proposal. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Ihardlythinkso was handed a mutual interaction ban against another editor ten days ago [28]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's so damning, isn't it? (Or at least, you'd like it to be. How about offering readers to go read that AN in totality, rather than attempt to cast defaming aspersions. Oh but of course, all decisions on AN are just and fair and equitable -- I forgot, please forgive.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then I would see my IBAN and raise it an indef. If you vehemently attack people to the point where you need multiple IBANs you need to either learn to deal with people in a reasonable capacity or be absent. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Continuing the "water off a duck's back" approach would have served you well, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly there comes a point where when somebody repeatedly and willfully attacks you with statements that are utterly counterfactual and who continues to do so despite repeated requests they stop that that is no longer an option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • More importantly, it's not Carrite's job to determine what level of abuse other editors should put up with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • @Chris Cunningham, as if you didn't harass me at at Tech Helpdesk when I simply asked a tech question re font setting to display Unicode characters, chiding and blaming me there for "policy" established at WP:CHESS that I had nothing to do with. And it isn't as if you've advised/warned/threatened several times to tear down Template:Algebraic notation, even though I already told you to go ahead and make the changes you want (that you will receive no opposition from this user/me) but then never followed up. After our lengthy discussion that went nowhere because you just pushed your POV and exclaimed "TL;DR" when replying in good-faith back to your concerns and issues at Talk:Algebraic notation. So really, you are very very neutral regarding me, right, everyone believes you. (LOL.) Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I wasn't even talking about you, but congratulations on showing the class that you really are incapable of interaction with other editors without airing your entire list of grievances with them in public on each occasion. That's problematic in itself, but at least it's obvious to all honest onlookers. What's less obvious is that Carrite has long deliberately cultured this atmosphere by defending this behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an administrator for the love of god close this thread? It is a predictable drama magnet that is going nowhere. It never should have been started. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I got about 4 paragraphs into this, then scrolled (for a while) to the bottom. Editors need to back away and stop beating the dead horse. In addition, some thicker skin is in order for the people that believe it is a personal attack to insinuate someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject matter. I mean... really? Grow a pair; someone has to say it. Heck, even "you're being stupid" is more of a personal attack, but not enough to run and tell an adult. Give skookum some time so that he doesn't think there is a cabal after him, and maybe he'll be more receptive and less defensive. Food for thought. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: Skookum1's habit of personal attacks was reported on ANI back in 2007. The current spate of personal attacks has been going on for several months. How much time do you suggest he needs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has said insinuating someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject area is a personal attack. Implying that an editor is mentally deficient, however, is, and that was after a wide variety of increasingly virtulent PAs were slung otherwise. I'm disappointed that there is still the air of "Skookum1 has done nothing wrong and bad, bad terrible admins for going after him" here, but what can you do, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But calling another editor a "classic narcissist", which (if you read the lede to that linked article in the name-call) is a diagnosable personality disorder, is not a PA??? (Please explain so we can all understand your assessment re what is PA and what isn't.) It's a matter of credibility of your vociferously announced opinions and accusations, hello. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: You have not convinced me (and possibly others) that a User:Skookum1 witch-hunt on wp:ANI was necessary. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone needed convincing, in 2014, that Skookum1 had behavioural issues incompatible with collegial editing around here, then said person isn't capable of being convinced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thumperward: I do not normally participate on this notice board, so am not aware of previous gossip that may or may not have convinced me to join the mob. All I am saying is that this lengthy discussion has not convinced me that it should have been started with the scanty evidence it provides. I also just noticed that User:The Bushranger did not discuss this issue with Skookum1 on his talk page as this notice board requires ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.”) XOttawahitech (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As with RFC/U, that option was not taken due to the fact that it would not have had a productive result and would only have resulted in more of the same; in addition, one does not ask the user one seeks to have warned to warn themselves. As for 'scanty evidence', if the evidence above is 'scanty' (considering the entire CfD was provided as evidence), I'm not sure what isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• mentoring A suggestion was made above that perhaps mentoring would help. @Skookum1:, is this something you'd be willing to consider? I'd be happy to work with you to find a suitable mentor (I'd volunteer myself but I'm guilty of some of the same walls-o-text so would not be the best mentor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum was offended by the suggestion of mentoring, so that's a dead end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting worse

An attempt by User:Resolute to persuade Skookum1 to moderate his approach has been unsuccessful. See User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this.

Most of it is just the usual verbosity, and a large chunk of it is repeated allegations of bad faith in my closures of XFDs and RMs, including assertions that I made "bad closures and false invocations of guidelines that do not, in fact, say what is being claimed", "Suggesting that I should show BHG good faith when she has showed me none at all, whether to do with the facts of the Squamish matter, or the presentations of citations and policy in the RMs".

However, the bit that catches my attention is : I collapsed them to avoid yet another invocation of "walls of text" and TLDR; the latter is not supposed to be used on discussion pages at all and its use, as it says clearly, is seen as unCIVIL...but was the pretext for ignoring all the very valid arguments on the Squamish CfD, and part of that close. "She" has since found an actual "behavioural guideline" to use instead in such instances; it's one of the many reasons the Squamish CFD close was bunk and illegal; but as I've found out by looking around, places like Move Review and Dispute Resolution and RfC are not about lookign at issues and guidelines, but only about wikiquette and "conduct".. Not about content, in other words, but about editors.

This repeats yet gain the false charge that I invoked TLDR; I didn't use that term, or link to that page. It also claims that the close was "illegal", which is nonsense; an editor may believe that the close was wrong, but WP does not have laws. Above all, if an editor believes that a close was flawed, they can take it to review, where uninvolved editors can assess whatever case Skookum1 wants to make about flaws in the closure. However, instead of doing that, Skookum1 continues to make a stream of vicious allegations about me, repeatedly denouncing my integrity. This is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Per WP:ADMINACCT I am quite happy for any closure I have made to be reviewed, and I will accept the outcome. But no admin should be subjected to an ongoing barrage because an editor refuses to use the review processes.

The worst bit, though is Skookum1's use of scare quotes in referring to me as she: "She" has since found an. This is a pure ad hominem attack. It is nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my judgement or conduct; it's an attack on me as a person and as a woman by trying to problematise my gender. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks at first glance that he was just using "she" in place of "BHG" to allude to you instead of mentioning you directly. Can you explain specifically how the edit "problematise(s)" your gender? Accusations like this should not be taken lightly at all. Doc talk 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What other purpose do the scare quotes serve? If it was simply a ref to me without mentioning my name, they were superfluous. The usage is well-described in the article scare quotes: "quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence of Skookum1 problematizing women editors there based on his use of scare quotes here. If I am wrong, so be it. But I just don't see it based on what you've presented. Doc talk 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if you were described to as an "editor", would you understand what the scare quotes were trying to say about you? As in look what that "editor" has done to the page? It's the same as look what that so-called editor has done to the page.
(Note, I am not trying cast aspersions on you, just to illustrate the use of the technique)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor is transgendered, and that editor identifies as being born as one gender but now lives as the other gender, and some editor comes along refers to them in scare quotes as "He" or "She" despite their declaration: I would see a "gender-bias" personal attack very clearly. Not here. You identify as a female, and I firmly think that him referring to you as "she" was simply his way of not mentioning your name. To even suggest borderline misogyny here is a bit irresponsible with this evidence. Doc talk 01:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please to be not mansplaining what BHG is intended to take from an unashamedly incivil editor's grammatical constructs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Doc talk 02:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't fault you for being annoyed, BHG. I'm trying with him, but evidently not getting anywhere. I can actually understand why you are thinking what you are with the use of "She", however, in this one specific case I do think Skookum intended the quotes for emphasis rather than to cast aspersions on your gender. I am also wondering if he meant to use double apostrophes to form She but ended with the quotation marks instead. Resolute 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We have to put frustration aside. Frustration is not "evidence". Whatever issues Skookum1 has here, if you don't have evidence of "gender discrimination" by him, it is completely unfounded and should be retracted. It doesn't matter how unpopular he is. It's unfounded. Doc talk 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I really wonder if you understand my point. I do not allege gender discrimination. I was noting a personal attack in the form of trying to problematise the gender of a woman with whom he has a disagreement, by suggesting that she is not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities. It's a classic way of denigrating women, frequently used for example in the portrayals of Margaret Thatcher by some of her opponents.

I am also astonished that when the thread User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this is replete with diatribes against my alleged bad-faith abuse of admin powers by an editor who admantly refuses to use established procedures to assess those actions, I am being asked to retract. It seems that Doc's view is that there is no need to seek retraction of any of that, but that the target of that abuse should retract her complaint. Strange world :(

Maybe it's time I put away my "computer" and stopped working tonight on this "encyclopedia". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I mention only the most serious accusation because it very serious indeed. I ask again: do you have any unambiguous evidence that he is intentionally referring to you as "not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities?" People that discriminate against others based on race, gender, etc. are routinely (and quickly) excluded here for very good reason. Doc talk 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you have mansplained the evidence away. And you continue to try to mansplain my complaint as being about discrimination, when it isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mansplained" is a term to describe what I've been saying? I'm operating on the assumption that "she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender"? AGF. Seriously. Doc talk 03:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, how many times do we repeat the cycle of me pointing out that I didn't allege discrimination and you insisting that I did, before it becomes mansplaining? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You said he was trying to "problematise your gender". How else can that be interpreted? Doc talk 03:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please just read discrimination. Personal abuse is not necessarily discrimination, and discrimination does not necessarily involve any personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that ordinarily, putting quotation marks around "she" would be a way to mark it as not signifying its apparent meaning, and could be interpreted to mean the writer did not believe the subject was actually female, or acting in ways culturally defined as female. However, this particular writer's punctuation usage is so idiosyncratic that it's hard to tell what was meant by it. For instance, in this 1000-word missive, the quotation marks used for "policy" and "discussion" seem to mean a policy that is not a policy and a discussion that is not a discussion. But the quotation marks in "walls of text" seem to be marking it as a direct quotation, while the reasons for using quotations for "(disambiguation)" and "us" are more obscure. I would be more concerned about this type of personalization, where various named editors--BrownHairedGirl, Dicklyon, and Arthur Rubin--are accused of "disruption", "bogging down RMs", "nitpickery", "wasting time" by not going to sources, and "bad faith". As usual, no diffs are presented, and there have been no requests for review of the RM or user conduct in the proper forums. —Neotarf (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, those are not 'frustration' quotes, those are 'there are no girls on the Internet' quotes. You can try to explain it away however you want, but that is saying "I don't believe your're really a woman" -there is no other way to take it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not how I see it at all. Doc talk 10:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that the use of scare quotes around "she" jumped out to me as well as questioning, at least, her lady-like behavior (a la Thatcher or Hillary Clinton). But as others have noted, it is hard sometimes to know what Skookum is intending with his writing style. It was clear that he was quite upset with BHG in that reply but his intent is not as clear. However, in an earlier comment in that same thread about another admin with whom Skookum seems to have also clashed with, User:Kwami, he doesn't use the scare quote when referring to him in comments like "And it was you who observed that we don't use Sarcee anymore vs. Tsuu Tina; that was indeed how those articles were.....until Kwami came along and turned the clock back forty years unilaterally, along with all the rest I mentioned (oh, including Heiltsuk-Bella Bella and Nuxalk-Bella Coola, too... and says he would have liked to move Kwakwaka'wakw to Kwakiutl and Nuu-chah-nulth to Nootka....).". Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want an example of a wildly inappropriate gendered reference, scroll up to the "grow a pair" comment earlier in the thread. Apparently BHG and other users are now expected to obtain male gonads, and prove they are "masculine" by putting up with abuse. No wonder Wikipedia has only 8% (soon to be 7%) female editors, and is routinely criticized in the press for systemic bias.

This is also an example of what happens when a thread goes on for too long, the bullies start hanging around the playground, and teach each other how to be better bullies. —Neotarf (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Neotarf pointed out "us" in quotes in one of Skookum's posts. That's clearly intended to be scare quotes: Who counts as "us" when outsiders name Native Americans, tying into his accusations of racism against anyone who agrees which the opinions on TITLE he himself held a year ago but has since abandoned. I haven't seen any evidence that Skookum mistakenly uses quotes where he intends italics or other emphasis. The obvious conclusion is just what BHG believes: that he's implying that, while BHG claims to be a woman, he has his doubts, or maybe even that he rejects her claim to be a woman as some sort of plot against him. If that's too uncertain a point to act on, so be it, but demanding that BHG retract her objection is inappropriate. Better to have the occasional charge of sexism that people judge hasn't been proved than to forbid women from making charges that men won't accept. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Who the hell is going to "forbid women" from making charges against men? What has this thread become? This is totally stupid right now. Doc talk 10:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you did, above. You regard the evidence as inadequate, which is a conclusion I disagree with, but you are entitled to your judgement.

There are several ways you could follow through on that. You could ask Skookum1 to avoid writing which could be interpreted that way. You could conclude something like "not proven", or "not enough to act on".

But instead you have chosen to problematise only the complainant, and demand that I refrain from even raising a concern. The parallel situation in the non-virtual world would be that if a good faith complaint to authorities were judged not to require any further action, those authorities would give the complainant a hard time to deter further complaints.

The context of this is important too. I acted as an admin in closing some backlogged discussions in which Skookum1 had a stake, using my best judgement in applying policy to the closures. Editors may disagree with that judgement, which is why we have review processes which allow a closing admin's actions to be reviewed, and overturned if there is a consensus to do so. That allows the issue to be settled, so that everyone can move on.

AFAICR, the first closure of mine which Skookum1 objected to was my closure on 23 March of the Category:Squamish CFD. Skookum1 posted to my talk page about it, where I rejected the complaint and invited him to open a deletion review. If he had done so, the community could have settled the issue long ago.

Similarly with the RM closures to which he objects. Take for example my 12 April close of the Chipewyan people RM, which he is still complaining about in User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this. Move review is available for that too.

Instead, Skookum1 persistently refuses to use the community's review mechanisms. He has chosen instead to post numerous lengthy attacks on me in multiple forums, with a repeated barrage of allegations that I was not acting in good faith, that I abused policy etc. These attacks have continued for over a month, are still ongoing.

The message from Skookum1 is loud and clear: that if he dislikes a closure, he will not seek a review. Instead he will hurl insults and abuse until he gets the answers he wants. This is plain bullying.

And the response at ANI has so far been that the admin's response should be to simply accept being on the receiving end of this macho rage, and not even to object unless the evidence on any individual point is undisputable. Neotarf is right: no wonder there are so few female editors.

This isn't a new problem. See for example Sue Gardner's 2011 post Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• comment I understand why BHG feels the way she does and she's undoubtedly been the subject of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith lodged by Skookum on multiple occasions. However here we are reading way too much into editing style - if you look at the recent missive posted to his talk page he puts "he" in quotes, as well as many other words which aren't themselves problematized but rather emphasized. E.g you can read it like She told me to do that then he told me to say the other thing, even though the place we were talking about was... It can be seen as dismissive or nagging but I don't see it as a slur on BHGs gender. Anyway it's just his writing style, sometimes scare quotes are used for emphasis and sometimes they are used to problematize something - another respected editor who uses scare quotes in this way is Bearcat, who is "constantly" using such quotes to "emphasize" the "main" points. We here need to come up with a reasonable path to help Skookup adjust his behavior but picking on a stylistic issue like this isn't helping IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Instead of looking for paths to adjust behaviour, why not simply insist that he use the existing paths?
    If he disagrees with an admin's closure, seek a review or accept the decision ... but stop immediately with the barrage of personal attacks as a substitute for review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'm not convinced that Skookum was intending to use quotes in that instance as a gender-based attack. He's pretty much going all Springs1 (seriously, Google that name) on his talk page at the moment, and just seems intent on adding emphasis all over the place. I don't wonder if he intended to italicize "she" but ended up with quotes instead of double apostrophes. In any case, BHG is correct above. Skookum needs to step back and look for a review rather than continue down this path. I was trying to point him toward an RFC, but I am not confident of it happening. At this point, I am going to disengage and leave him be since there is nothing I productive I (or any of us) can do right now while he's off in such a rage. Either he will calm down on his own, or he will keep fighting and walk right into what I tried to ward him away from. Resolute 13:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BHG, we can insist all we want, indeed many have so-insisted, but there hasn't been a change in behavior. I am not condoning Skookum's personal attacks here, on you, or on anyone, I'm just saying "she" is not the crime we should be going after a conviction for. Either this ends in another block for Skookum, or we find a way to modulate his behavior. I agree there are avenues like move review he could pursue but he has chosen not to. If an admin were to impose a block for personal attacks I don't think anyone would disagree, indeed such a block was recently placed, but did the behaviour change? Not yet it seems. We need to think out of the box, or consider it a lost cause.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I admire the efforts which you and Resolute and others have made to try to persuade him to take a more constructive approach. You follow on from others, such as those I noted in a collapsed box earlier in his thread. But as you say, insisting ain't working.

I accept (with regret) that there seems to be no consensus to act on the "she" comment. However, I don't see why there is a need to think outside the box.

Why not just place an indef block, stressing that indefinite does not mean infinite ... and make it explicit that the block will be lifted when he undertakes to a) use dispute resolution channels to address his grievances, and accept the outcome of those processes; b) restrict his comments in consensus-forming discussions to the matter in hand, concisely discussing content and policy rather than editors.

That means that if if he disagrees with a closure, use WP:MR/WP:DRV, and accept that even if he thinks the result of the review is flawed, the matter is closed. If he believes that an editor or admin has been behaving unfairly to him, then open an RFC/U and accept the outcome. It means that either he challenges them through the processes which provide a remedy, or he lets them go ... but that he will not be allowed to continue shouting his grievances endlessly in places where they cannot be resolved.

That would give him a clear statement of what is required, and a clear choice between editing in accordance with the 5 pillars, or not editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, things are heading that way, that's for sure...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanja_Bulić

I am reporting the exchange between myself and User:QuackDoctor User talk:QuackDoctor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanja_Bulić. I began in good faith, but instead of offering calm arguments for retention, he laid into me and immediately questioned my motives. When I advised him to stop, he laid into me with the whole deletionist troll routine, after which I will decline to interact with him in any other way, other than to replace the required ANI warning on his talk page. If he has arguments for retention, he should just make them and not question my motives or the motives of any other user. Safiel (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent any escalation, I will not continue the discussion on the deletion page. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite the contrary, the editor Safiel, who has evident deletionist practice, has questioned MY motives, by accusing me of having conflict of interest about the biography of a well known Serbian author and journalist (author of several bestselers, among other things), even accusing me of being Vanja Bulic. This is clearly ad hominem attack and not assuming any good faith. He also wants to remove page about a perfectly valid and well known person (that has page on Serbian wikipedia, has written screenplays for major Serbian movies, hosted over 2000 TV shows, was editor of a major news magazine etc) that a friend of mine created as a way to experience wikipedia editing. What he experienced is major abuse, and it is extremely annoying (obviously, Safiel is now extending his abuse to me). QuackDoctor (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I notice you have gone through and reverted unrelated deletion related edits by me, without giving any substantial reason for your edit. And none of this needed to have happen. If you had merely given your reason for retaining the article and not attacked me to begin with, there would be no argument. I would have had no problems. But you choose to go personal right away. Editors have a right to propose deletion and the articles are duly considered by the community. Had you been nice, I would have thoughtfully engaged you in discussion. Instead, you immediately went personal. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why but I think I have seen this user before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to see a brand new editor with 30 edits using language like "deletionist". Ravensfire (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture on the profile rings a bell as well as the type of name but cant put my finger on it, I know though that this was months ago at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• QuackDoctor's first "argument" in the AFD lacks good faith and civility, outright calling the nominator "malicious" and ignorant. The rest is just icing on the cake. At AFD you make your policy-based argument for the outcome you feel is the correct one, and move on. If you don't understand that then you should not be participating at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say who is participating or not? Your attitude is that of turning away new contributors (and the new contributor in question is the person who created the article, not me, who have anonimously contributed from time to time for many years; certainly, the attitude towards contributing editors who are new or anonimous has changed for the worse over time, and you try to bully people out of editing, defying all advantages that existed in this project in the first place (and are sadly ruining it, as potential new editors turn away in disgust, making diversification of editor base that is missing impossible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.252.43 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Except most new editors don't use the kind of remarks made by Quack here, FreeRange here used the words "If you don't understand" before making the last comment in which you cited which in this case is correct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not create the article, the person who did is new. You are turning him away (and bullying me too in the process). QuackDoctor (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay first I want to say how do you not see your own edits as being a "bully" to other editors? The person who created the article may be new but articles get deleted here on Wikipedia that are created by experienced editors as well, you cant and shouldn't take it personally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article history. The very moment it was created, it was suggested for speedy deletion. I removed the notice, and told my friend to continue editing. He did so, and learned a few things about how to do it. Then it was proposed for deletion, and then had article for deletion page, despite the fact that the article was extended (now by me) to show more of the content. Yes, articles do get deleted, but people should give it more time and some google check since the effect is that you turn away potential contributors. If you assume that every new article is some hoax (despite the very numerous google pages with news sources, albeit in Serbian), you are damaging the project. This is the real issue here, since many people get scared away in this way and never come back to edit. If my reaction was strong, it was justified. It should make people here reassess this attitude, which is not doing any good, and this is a problem that has been discussed at length here [29]. I had opportunity to see it happen with this article and a friend of mine, but I am sure it happens all the time. People who I reacted to are not going to leave the project. People like my friend, on the other hand, are not going to stay if this is how they are "welcomed". There used to be some policy about treating newcomers in the distant past but it seems it is long gone. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point, no welcome message was placed on your talkpage, the welcome message helps explain how to use Wikipedia and explains the policies. There is no justification however for being nasty towards uninvolved editors a better thing you could have done is ask for help from an editor. I want to say too that in the future try using the WP:SANDBOX or request a new article to be made at (WP:REQUEST). Before you hit submit or save you can always text a new article and see what others think about it before saving it onto Wikipedia to be seen by everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@QuackDoctor: Just for your benefit, I believe you were trying to remember the WP:BITE guideline which suggests to treat newcomers carefully so as not to drive them away. -- Atama頭 02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• More of the same: Proposal is biased, from a devoted deletionist that damages wikipedia, removes valid articles about subcultures that he knows not a thing, is possibly racist and deserves some scrutiny! diff and The flag is symbol of the new republic, and it is well known. The deletionist and Ukraine breakup denialist just attempts to change history, but it will not work diff. Looks like the Doctor is here to "tell it like it is". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is very hostile to try to delete the article the very moment it was created. The person who created the article (as a way to come to wikipedia, and at MY invitation) was disgusted by this, and told me "I don't want to do this, this is not worth my time". That is the kind of environment you are presenting to new users. I am simply reacting to that" (Copied content from one of the AfD discussions).

@User:QuackDoctor I answered your concern above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment regarding the tag for speedy deletion. I was there when it happened, and reverted the removal of CSD tag, I then looked at the artilce and saw it was tagged immediately tagged and talked to Katieh5584 about adding No context tags right when the page is created. It was a mistake by Katieh5584 and myself that was resolved quickly. TheMesquito (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment On the basis of several good faith keep rationales by other users, I have withdrawn and closed the AfD. Had the other party behaved civilly towards me in the first place and given a good faith reasoned defense of the article, rather than attacking me, I would very likely have withdrawn the AfD then. I suggest the other party take a lesson that civility and good faith will get you a lot more cooperation of Wikipedia, than will failing to assume good faith and conducting attacks. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the evidence [30] shows the opposite. In fact, out of his last 1000 edits, that almost exclusively consist of proposals for deletion of pages not a single proposal for deletion of an article that he suggested, Safiel closed in this way - a pretty impressive track record. A typical situation, that shows how this deletionist behaved is this [31]: Clear keep concensus (without even a single vote for deletion of Ernest Hill article), similar arguments like here (google in fact shows notability etc), but did Safiel speedy close the proposal? No, it was there for a week, until someone else closed it. The only speedy thing he did was speedy delete - A LOT. Seems like the outrage generated (by spooking deletionism turning away people) made him reconsider his ways, at least in this case it worked within a day. In any case, WP:BEFORE seems to be what was missing here, in addition to WP:BITE QuackDoctor (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is completely wrong, the user has 9,332 edits to the mainspace or about 53.24% of his edits to Wikipedia compared to 1,086 to the Wikipedia space or 6.20% of his edits (he has more edits to the both of the Talk spaces at 3,299 and 3,188 respectively. You seriously need to stop attacking other editors with baseless claims. I would suggest an admin close this immediately before it gets any worse. TheMesquito^buzz 03:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@TheMesquito:, I know what you mean, but I don't think it would send the right signals to close a thread without resolution in order to stop the person reported from attacking others; it might look like bullying people is a good strategy here. A block is a better way to prevent attacks, and I've posted a strong personal attack warning on QuackDoctor's page. Especially their evidence-free accusations of racism in the deletion discussions are completely unacceptable. I agree with the people above that QuackDoctor is surprisingly fluent with the alphabet soup and Wikipedia jargon for an editor of less than a week's standing. Perhaps they're just a quick study, but if the aggressive editing continues, the sock angle will surely be investigated. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Just to say something here, Newbies aren't always clueless and Don't be quick to assume someone is a sockpuppet. Just because they're new doesn't mean they never got a chance to see the policies of Wikipedia. You don't need to be logged in or welcomed to know those pages are there.

Also, it says right on the top of Special:NewPages that pages shouldn't be tagged for CSD A1 or A3 immediately after creation. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

More IBAN violations by Ihardlythinkso

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.

---

Again Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) violates both the letter and the spirit of the IBAN by continually referencing the "narcissist" comment. [32].
Note also his behaviour on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Shogi, where his posts made clear references to me and my actions. This proposal for a new WikiProject had lain dormant for months; why did he suddenly feel compelled to post a whole lot of inflammatory stuff immediately after I posted there? This wasn't picked up in the recently closed thread but it should have been. Does this IBAN actually have any teeth or is he just going to be "warned" again so that he can continue with his unacceptable behaviour? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the appropriate venue for these kinds of concerns is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GeneralNarcissism (AN/GN)? That might apply to about half the threads here. Anyway. Carry on. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support 24 hour block. The thread I started yesterday [33] was closed with a second warning "Ihardlythinkso is reminded to NOT talk about MaxBrowne at all." and "Atama, or another involved administrator, will not hesitate to block in the future." Atama specifically warned against bringing up the issue dealing with the word "narcissist". Ihardlythinkso is not heeding that warning at all, here he continues complaining about the "narcissist" personal attack, and while it is a direct complaint over The Bushranger, it is also a clear indirect jab at MaxBrowne, which is just as prohibited as a direct jab. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: there is also a thread here on the same topic. —Neotarf (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• It appears to me, much to my disappointment, that the reservations I expressed when endorsing the restriction are simply justified. I honestly do not see why the both of you should not be sanctioned, if not for anything else, but as an enforced wikibreak to get your priorities straight and start figuring out a more effective way to dedicate your time in Wikipedia. Yes, sure, this editor is clearly acting foolishly by not following the very sensible advice he has been given to take a voluntary wikibreak, and instead, making the comment cited in this ANI which consists of grievances about old issues. Lack of clue is also an issue which is affecting his behaviour (which would probably warrant normal dispute resolution before running back here). However, by the same token, I also don't understand why this editor's comments are being followed or scrutinised in this similar-to-obsessive fashion with blocks being sought at every turn. And even ignoring that, if the user to whom the comment was made is in no way affected by it, do you not see how counterproductive it is to bring it back here so that it receives 10 times the amount of attention it would have otherwise received? It's exactly why I would seriously consider whether or not the Community restriction should be vacated now. It would mean you have to air your grievances in an arbcom case rather than here at every turn; ultimately one of you might be a lot better off than the other (or not) after you've exhausted each other, but at least it would mean the community could address other (more serious) issues more promptly rather than losing time checking the repeated relatively-petty complaints of this squabble. (I use the word petty in this way because if the violation in the earlier thread were as serious as suggested, the clear consensus of the uninvolved eyes would've been to block rather than issue another warning - an action which I happened to also endorse as it so happens, which frankly, says enough). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I find it disturbing that you are monitoring IHTS's user talk page. If you are going to bring up the "spirit" of the interaction ban, you should take care to follow the spirit yourself, in that you should be avoiding each other. I do understand that you are not literally violating the ban by bringing your complaint here (reporting the other party for a violation of the ban in an appropriate venue, such as this board, is explicitly allowed) but if you are going to accuse the other party of violating the spirit of the ban while not violating the letter, you should expect to be held to the same standards. I checked to make sure that there was nothing added to the IBAN aside from the standard provisions (because some interaction bans prohibit editors from following each other to pages) but there is no such restriction here. Also, I know that IHTS is heavily-involved in chess matters, so it's not unreasonable to think that he was there only because of his involvement in chess-related matters on the project. And he refrained from commenting until a third party also commented, and restricted his interactions on that page to the other person. In that situation I don't see any violation.

But I did say that if IHTS didn't drop the stick and kept bringing up the "classic narcissist" comment he'd be blocked. I made that very unambiguous. And yet he did so again. I'm instituting a 24 hour block, because if I don't do so there may as well not even be an IBAN if nobody is enforcing it. IHTS should know exactly where the line is, because it was pointed out very clearly, and to repeat the behavior looks like an attempt to explore the boundaries of the ban. This block helps to set those boundaries. It's my hope that IHTS just moves on and stops bringing up this petty point, it's a waste of everyone's time. I'll also point out that multiple editors (including myself) have already answered his question (is the statement a personal attack) to the affirmative, so to bring it up again seems to be willful disruption.

That being said, I'm going to try to engage personally with IHTS on his user talk page, because I think there are valid concerns from him in the midst of this, and I don't want to give the impression that he's being ignored. -- Atama頭 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN's are transitive now? So not only is IHTS not allowed to discuss the OP, but any editor (e.g. Bushranger) they've also got cross threaded with? NE Ent 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No. That is not at all what's happening. It was explained very clearly in the ANI thread previously that bringing up the comment was an indirect criticism of MaxBrowne, since the personal attack had originated from them. IHTS can complain about Bushranger, and I made sure to express to IHTS that I agree that the suggestion that the comment wasn't a personal attack was incorrect, and that suggestions otherwise were unfair. But to continue to mention the comment specifically is a violation. There was no ambiguity, it was made clear, and there were multiple people supporting that suggestion. IHTS continued to bring it up regardless. So if someone is told "do this and you will be blocked per the ban", and they do it, they are willfully violating the ban. Also, due to the unambiguity from the closure of the last thread, it is only reasonable to assume that IHTS was deliberately egging on administrators to enforce the ban to test whether or not it was actually going to be enforced. It is critical that it is enforced, otherwise the interaction ban may as well not exist. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. -- Atama頭 16:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of clarity, it's a matter of being wrong. In essence, what Atama is saying is that they individually imposed a topic ban on an editor, which is not supported by WP:CBAN. I'm not seeing any notice on IHTS's talk page nor any logging of it on WP:Editing restrictions. Arguably, IHTS had moved on from obsessing about MB to obsessing about Bushranger -- see the discussion on his (IHTS) talk and also mine. To me, by stalking IHTS's talk page MB violated the IBAN as much or more than IHTS. (Since they've both been long active on chess related articles, it's unreasonable to think one is stalking the other if both end up on the same page.) Clearly, IHTS has been on the path of self wiki destruction, and I'd hoped they'd change course before they got there, and hearing about Bushranger's incorrect "spade is a spade" endorsement of the PA over and over again is tiresome. But a bogus 24 hour block on fallacious reasoning is unlikely to improve things. If there was a block to made, it should be on the grounds of WP:TE, not a flimsy synthetic topic ban out of an iban. Which means that a "reaching out followup," no matter how well intentioned isn't terribly likely to be successful. NE Ent 17:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama's reasoning is sound, and I agree fully with it, as well as his caution to MaxBrowne of not looking for things IHTS might engage in. Any reference by IHTS to MaxBrowne's conduct, directly or indirectly, regardless of whether he is named or not, is a violation of the IBAN. If IHTS had written

" I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA"."

nobody would disagree that it would be a blatant violation of the IBAN, since it is a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne's comment and conduct. What IHTS actually did write,

" I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA".,

amounts to the same thing, both in spirit and meaning. It is just as much a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne, and mentioning MaxBrowne implicitly rather than explicitly is immaterial. Both are in violation of the IBAN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well first of all, "cautioning" MB while rewarding him by blocking the opponent isn't a very effective deterrent. We have a choice between assuming IHTS was continuing his old pissing contest with MB, or continuing his current one with BR. WP:AGF (at much as it can be applied here) suggests we go with the latter. Reviewing the thread, I'll note the closing summary made no mention of the alleged topic ban, so claiming there was community support for it is suspect. NE Ent 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To your three points. (1) The reason MB "gets off" with a caution, while IHTS receives a block, is that IHTS has already received two cautions, MB hasn't received any before this. (2) Whether IHTS primarily was pursuing Bushranger or MaxBrowne is not really relevant. Obviously, he was going after Bushranger, but in so doing he made a reference to MaxBrowne's comment from several weeks ago even when he was explicitly warned not to. (3) There is no topic ban, but there is an interaction ban that was violated by continually making reference to the "narcissist" comment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Point (1), for the record, being the reason I blocked him and inadvertantly started off this fracas in the first place: regardless of whether or not the "narcissist" comment was or wasn't a PA, the worst MB would have gotten was a "don't do that" warning - while IHTS had already been warned and chose to carry on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record I'm not "following" his talk page, and I didn't even participate in the previous discussion at ANI. It was the shogi discussion that led me to check his recent editing history and raise the issue. The Shogi discussion clearly suggests that he has been following my edits and is in fact hounding me. Why hasn't anyone else picked up on this? Also I absolutely hate the implication that in seeking to have the IBAN enforced I am somehow doing the wrong thing, and that I am somehow equally guilty. The whole situation is very upsetting to me and I hate being tarred with the same brush. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The brush has two ends. I suggest MaxBrowne let go of theirs. 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For once and for all NE Ent (talk · contribs), stop blaming me for IHTS's behaviour. I find it personally insulting. Since the IBAN I've minded my own business, made good edits to to article space and made no mention of him directly or indirectly, even when a previous ANI was opened. He's the one who reacted to and made direct reference to my edits on the Shogi discussion; he's the one who refuses to drop the WP:STICK. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You've accused him of hounding because of the Shogi discussion -- there are currently six threads on this talk page with shogi is the title, starting with User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#shogi_variants:_piece_values from last August. NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, is BR still saying the narcissist thing wasn't a personal attack??? NE Ent 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, BR did not say that in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nor did The Bushranger say the converse (hence the question). NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - BMK (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Block -Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support block of IHTS. I should state here that I'm perfectly non-neutral w/r/t IHTS or I'd just impose it myself, but his behavior here seems to continue his previous pattern of behaving in problematic and uncivil ways while exercising a good deal of WP:IDHT. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can't disagree with the IDHT part, but here's the question -- is a 24 hour block -- especially for the wrong reason likely to improve things? NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support block -- Can see how he keeps bragging, even when he is blocked. OccultZone (Talk) 11:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Answering Ent (and adding it on here because, well, nowhere else is appropriate): After looking things over and consdering it, my choice of words in the original issue was admittedly quite poor. Accusing somebody of narcissism is a personal attack, however, given the situation, actions, and overall mess that was going on at the time, it was not an actionable "NPA" - it was provoked, and the editor had not previously been warned, which I should have been clearer about at the time. For my lack of clarity, I apologise, and I also apologise for allowing IHTS' goading to keep me from assessing it further and clarifying what I meant sooner. (And, as I said before, it changes nothing about the actions that would have taken place.) For that, I administer a self-trouting, and resolve to speak clearer and triple-check my words before clicking 'submit' when the heat:light ratio is increasing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• What dishonest manipulation, User:The Bushranger. Here I clearly asked you to redact your PA:

  So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  Here was your reply:

  Let's be very clear here: there will be no redaction, as there was no personal attack to be reinforced. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. The fact that you have shopped your complaint to (at least) four admins and gotten "two threats, one insult, and one nothing" should indicate that the problem is not the 'personal attack' you are claiming. There comes a point where your refusal to listen to what everyone is telling you and continuing to insist they're all wrong and you're right becomes an indication that you are not capable of being part of a collegial and constructive editing environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  Also, you say he PA was "provoked". Where's the provoking diff? There were no exchanges between users any time recent prior to the AN. And I handled myself professionally at that ANI up the point of the PA. You blame the victim by saying I provoked that PA. Where's any recent diff prior to the PA that you say provoked it?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I criticized you for that action (on IHTS's talk page explicitly, and I at least implied it by agreeing that it was a PA) but I appreciate your statement here and think it was appropriate. Whether or not IHTS is as accepting, who knows. This whole issue has exhausted my patience, honestly, and I'm generally a pretty patient person. I'm going to let other administrators deal with any further enforcement and/or evaluation of the IBAN, for whichever party. I've got plenty of other pans on the stove right now. -- Atama頭 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive 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.

---

BLUF: Science.Warrior needs an indef block for repeatedly restoring copyvios and for being remarkably disruptive.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have been reverting SW for inserting copyrighted material and disrputing other articles, such as removing an AfD template from a nominated page and issuing inappropriate warnings]. Multiple users have tried explaining his actions to him, however, he pays no heed to the advice and continues on his rampage. He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein. The user has also made reference to WP:BEANS, so I'm pretty sure we're not dealing with a new user. Please block; I'm done dealing with him. Ishdarian 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Science.Warrior clearly has earned a block. As Ishdarian notes, he has broken 3RR on two different articles, repeatedly added nonfree images to articles while preposterously claiming to be the copyright owner, and harassed editors who disagree with him - in my case, removing the AFD tag from an article I'd nominated earlier today, then announcing at the top of my talk page that "i will be frequently giving you visits from now onward".[34] The account has only been around a few days, and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This statement is not true regarding the Goldstein article. "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein."

See info here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Goldstein&action=history After counting using the article history, it appears that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Science Warrior undid revisions two times EACH. Looks like a bit of fuzzy math?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Ishdarian 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was an allegedly well thought out way to tag team a newer editor, and get him/her to a ani in a jif! What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, however, that was not the only reason the editor is here. I'm pretty sure that breaking 3RR is small potatoes compared to the restoration of copyvios. Thanks for assuming good faith, though! Ishdarian 23:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll with a burn against me because I caught her committing gross BLP violations and forced the cleanup of this articles involved; see Rachel Reilly and Talk:Rachel Reilly. Nobody who looks at SW's talk page history and sees the barrage of independent warnings from five different editors will give her nonsense any credence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians. I (user Science.Warrior) am pretty sure that user "ishdarian" & user "hullaballoo" are part of a bigger conspiracy on Wikipedia, So let me answer all the baseless allegations reported by them one by one.

• Inserting copyrighted material The copyrighted material both these users are talking about, are the pictures prepared and uploaded by me using CS6 . When i asked for their help on how to change the license, no help was provided rather both of them vandalized the articles Kurt Goldsteinand Self actualization theory deleting the images from the articles, which are been solely prepared and uploaded by me. So if they both have problem with the copyright material why don't they guide me on how to make valid changes in the license section of the pictures? I really don't know what "3RR" these guys referring to, when i search wiki it shows up this page 3RR, I am a new user and have joined Wikipedia 4 days ago, these users are trying to use "technical buzzwords" to cover their act of their vandalism and personal attacks.

• Reference to Wp:beans Well i am new here but i am a fast learner, as user-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" stated "The account has only been around a few days and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing" I take this as a compliment, that he is so impressed by my contribution to Wikipedia in few days that he thinks i am a returning editor. Yes i have a agenda and anyone can read that on my user page.

• Removing the AFD tag I think this was a pre-planned conspiracy setup by both the user "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian". They reverted my edits endless times on the article Kurt Goldstein, self actualization theory and user-"Ishadharin" 8 times in a row reverted the link of the article self actualization theory to the article self actualization, The primary motive of writing the article self actualization theory by me was because the article self actualization does not meet the quality standard of Wikipedia and was tagged with 3 "Bad article" tags, if i would have edited the article i would have to delete the previous contributions of other contributors, so i rather decided to write a new article and let other editors decide what can be done, This information can be seen on the talk page of the article self actualization, where users have complaints about the quality of the article. So after their constant attacks i also tried to do the same & fell in their trap, i am a new user 4 days old & i don't know much of technicality of Wikipedia right now.

• Beside this both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" have started personal attacks on the articles i was or working on for past few days, I constantly asked for their guidance on their talk pages but they don't reply or provide any guidance and rather keep on vandalizing the articles i am working on, they have made 28 edits in past 5 hours to the articles i have corrected recently.

• But i would really respect both these users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" if they are really concerned about the authenticity and quality of material on Wikipedia as they claim, but i rather feel they are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by forcing other editors and new editors to comply on what they feel is right.

• Both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" use a very strong and rough abusive language on "edit summary" of articles and on other users talk pages, for eg. "Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll" which user-"Ishdarian" used to refer to user-"Carriearchdale" on his above comments publicly, You can imagine what kind of language he would be using on other user talk pages. I strongly feel both these users are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by their conspiracy tactics and should be reminded that this would not be tolerated here. Science.Warrior (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment-Just to let you and everyone else know Science.Warrior this one user h that was posting back and forth with you on Monday is himself dishonest, instigating, and an inciting troll that picks out victims on wikipedia just to give a hard time to said victims. It appears as if the other user I allegedly went in tandem, or tag team mode with h to try to incite you to be reverting h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving.

I read where h typed a very demeaning message to you when you were trying to discuss with him the issues on his talk page. And then h erased all the banter between you and him on his talk page by reverting or erasing somehow perhaps to hide the evidence of his uncivil and threatening behavior towards you. see WP:CIVIL

I saved this one post he made to you:

"NFCC issues

In response to your question, poorly placed as it may have been, on my talk page, you badly need to become familiar with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. You've also just broken WP:3RR on the Goldstein article, so unless you immediately revert yourself you're going to get a break from editing in which to do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"[35] - one instance see WP:CIVIL

That one reads a bit like a threat and or personal attack to me, as well as possibly violating WP:CIVIL.

I have been a member of wikipedia since 2007. I would like to welcome you Science.Warrior to wikipedia. If you have any questions about wikipedia, or I can help you you in anyway with some of the questions and wiki technical type stuff please do not hesitate to contact me @ my talk page. I hope you and everyone have a most citational and perfect Tuesday! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Science.Warrior: "been solely prepared and uploaded by me" So you're saying you met Kurt Goldstein and Abraham Maslow and took these photos? And this happened when? These images don't particularly look like they were taken close to the age these people passed away, particularly for Kurt Goldstein. So you took the photos or at least the Kurt Goldstein one 70 or more years ago perhaps?

Also please see WP:Vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the other editors here, their actions clearly aren't vandalism and calling it such seriously discredits any valid point you may have.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you're a new user, this still doesn't explain why you removed the AFD template which clearly tells you not to remove it. Removing the template doesn't of course change the fact the article is at AFD which is why it was later fixed by a bot, and as others have said you're reasoning didn't even make sense (you apparently didn't read the tag properly, it sounds like you didn't even read the article properly). I don't know what nonsense you're talking about a preplanned conspiracy either as you had not edited the article Master Liam Lockran or its talkpage until you removed the template, unless you're saying you're an alternative account of User:Sutorta. How was anyone to know you would randomly stalk HW and remove an AFD tag they added to an unrelated article, apparently without reading much at all. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came across this editor yesterday, after seeing "unnecessary vandalism by nominating for AFD, this is valid article, with strong theory and history." as an edit summary something felt really strange about this. Note that their way with language seems to dramatically decline over time, which to me seems like they're trying to appear like a newer user. [36] [37] [38]

While Science.Warrior is claiming that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Ishdarian have something against them, SW has been following the users contributions and reverting perfectly valid edits as "vandalism" [39] [40] [41] I'm unsure whether SW is a new user or just a new account, but to me it seems like they're WP:NOTHERE.

--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - ok now i (user Science.Warrior) can connect the missing dots to this conspiracy, after reverting the edits by User-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and "User:Ishdarian". User-"Lewis Hulbert" was the one to put the speedy delete tag on the images i uploaded, i tried to remove the unnecessary tag but user-"Nil Einne" came and tagged it again, following this i decided to write on user-"Nil Einne" talk page on how the improvements can be made, but before that can be done, to my surprise i see both of these users have already commented here. Are you guys working in a team or what?

• "been solely prepared by me" means made on Adobe CS6 platform, which i stated above, if you are not aware of the of what CS6 can do please ask your friend Google and I am really confused why are allegations of "returning editor", "old user with new account" cited? am i that good learning things, i even didn't knew that. The best part that makes me laugh is, I am a "returning editor" and writing articles and uploading photos related to "psychology" and "business theories", the allegations would look good if i would be writing promotional contents or extremist articles on religion and countries.
• right now i am dead sure this team is a part of some "conspiracy planning" or the "teenage superiority war games". "Listen up guys, i am devoting my precious time to provide quality contribution to Wikipedia, if you ask why? you can find the answer of my user page. So if you are really concerned about Wikipedia content quality and governance like you show, try to help me out rather bombarding me with personal attacks and wasting my time." Science.Warrior (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're either blatantly lying or just confused. I haven't tagged any of your images for speedy deletion either here or on Wikimedia Commons. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't been involved in this at all prior to the earlier comment on this discussion. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Science.Warrior for a week. I was tempted to block the editor indefinitely, but because they are new I cut them a bit of slack. This editor is convinced that the warnings they've received are illegitimate and a small group of editors have a conspiracy against them. My hope is that a block will snap them out of that mindset. If not, an indefinite block will probably be needed to prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(multiple EC) Look I doubt anyone really gives a damn what you did or did not do in CS6 which was why I didn't mention it earlier. CS6 cannot magically construct images out of thin air. And it's clear these are photos, not paintings you drew from memory or your imagination or whatever.

These photos were clearly not taken by you therefore they cannot be your own work, whatever you may or may not have done with them in CS6. To claim they "solely prepared"" by you, let alone that they were your own work, was quite misleading when the core creative work, that of taking the photographs, was clearly NOT your work. Your apparent inability to understand this doesn't bode well.

New editors do sometimes get confused with copyright matters. But as copyright is serious they should read and think about what they are doing and be willing to listen and defer to others and stop any possibly problematic copyright related editing until and unless they properly understand the problems with their editing (seeking help when needed) and are unlikely to repeat such problems. You've shown none of that. While not technically a wikipedia issue, removing the speedy deletion tags not once but twice on commons without converting it in to a normal deletion was clearly not acceptable there. Nor are any reversions of copyright violation removals you're made here.

Incidentally the tags were added in commons by Commons:User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz who I presume is an alternative account for HW. Lewis Hulbert is correct they were not involved. So again, you've failed to properly read and check before doing stuff (in this case accusing someone). All this might be slightly tolerable were it not for your continual shrill accusations when you appear to be mostly in the wrong (and most of your accusations make little sense), inability or unwillingness to understand what you're being told, and general unpleasant attitude that I've seen here and elsewhere.

P.S. Since Kurt Goldstein is deceased and we possibly have no image of them, it's possible a WP:NFCC claim could be made for some image. That would of course need to be done here, not on commons and particularly given his age, perhaps a check to see if any public domain images exist (I mean it's possible the image you're trying to upload is in the public domain, we just don't have anywhere enough info to say that it is). People could have, and probably would have, discussed this with you if you'd approached it in a more resonable manner rather than the way you did.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• A week-long block for the WP:C issues demonstrated herein is unfortunately inadequate. Per the precautionary principle, I've changed the block to indefinite until such time that Science.Warrior can demonstrate that they understand the issues at hand. Anything else puts both them and Wikipedia at risk. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale

Good. Now what should be done about user:Carriearchdale? Hr contributions to this thread have been far from helpful (rather the complete opposite), and from reading coments here, it seems she has displayed problematic behaviour for a long time. She e.g. stated here that one of HW's statements was not true and that SW only reverted twice: however, looking at the edit history she linked[42], it is very obvious that Science Warrior reverted four times in the span of less than two hours (20.07, 20.27, 20.38 and 21.22). Later comments in the same discussion include things like "h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving." (Hullabaloo removed a copyvio, hardly vandalizing). Her involvement here seems to be rataliation for Hullabaloo's edits at Ink Master (season 4)

Carriearchdale was editing that article, and removed the GOCE tag at 18.45.[43], making her last edit at 19.29[44]. 6 Hours later, Hullabaloo edited the article[45], and the immediate reaction from Carrie was to readd the GOCE tag[46]. Hullabaloo ten makes ten edits to the article, which were all at once reverted by Carriearchdale because "GOCE tag is in place"[47] (no edits were made on the article by Carriearchdale between placing the GOCE tag and reverting Hullabaloo). More back-and-forths followed. Apparently they have a longer history, but that doesn't give her an excuse to insert herself into a dispute and try to derail it by spouting incorrect statements and claming that Hullabaloo made personal attacks (see above, no personal attack exists in the example she gives). Fram (talk) 07:55, 30 April 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.

Post-closing comments

@TParis: um, what? "As for Carriearchdale, we don't block people for disagreeing with Fram." I have never encountered Carriearchdale, and have no "disagreements" with her. As an editor uninvolved with either party or article in this dispute, I noticed someone (Carriearchdale) coming here seemingly to get someone she has problems with (Hullabaloo) into trouble, and to achieve that she makes some completely incorrect claims here. I don't believe such behaviour should be ignored. But I don't want her blocked for disagreeing with me, please show me where she disagreed with me (or where I asked for a block for that matter, ANI can be used for more than just blocks) before making such statements, and please don't close discussions with such out-of-the-blue misinformed claims. Fram (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For starters this comment from above: "Fram's points that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement.

If you read here [48]] you will see this statement: "She e.g. stated here that one of HW's statements was not true" In fact at this place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Carriearchdale]

This is what I said: "Comment - This statement is not true regarding the Goldstein article. "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein.""

This is the person who made the statement (still again same diff (click anyone you like)[49]] "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein. The user has also made reference to WP:BEANS, so I'm pretty sure we're not dealing with a new user. Please block; I'm done dealing with him. Ishdarian 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

Now then let us all scroll back up here to this comment: "The only "retaliation" was for someone coming to an unrelated ANI thread not to give useful opinions and perspective, but to get an opponent into trouble, and by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable. [[User:Fram|Fram]"

• The only person/user that I know for certain made one and or more incorrect and misleading statements is named. fram Fram.

• To quote fram from scrolling up[50]}

• "by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable."

• "misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement."fram

Fram' trys to point out that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement."

It all just looks like the cat calling the kettle black!!!

pot calling the kettle black This is a phrase that states that the person you are talking to is calling you something that they themselves are (and generally in abundance).[1] from: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pot%20calling%20the%20kettle%20black

Well I hope you all had a ribbony May Day. They even celebrated in Moscow today, the first time since the Soviet era! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If there was a point to this post you have now made in at least three discussions (here, my talk, TParis talk), it would be useful if you expressed it somewhat coherently. You are supposed to be a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, please bring these skills with you and give us a message we can understand without needing to decipher it. Fram (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Shane Harper 4 Life

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:Shane Harper 4 Life has been adding malicious content, harassed me, and removing/ignoring warnings given. This all started when I reverted the user for adding unreasonable content ([51], [52], [53], [54]) on the Bridgit Mendler article. The user then started an edit war by restoring the unreasonable content. I then gave the user two warnings: (one for edit warring, and another for harassment on my talk page. The user then removed my and prior warnings by other users. After reverting the blanking, the user removed them again and claimed that they were attacks. If this behavior continues and the warnings don't work, I would suggest that an indefinite block from editing altogether and banning from editing Bridgit Mendler-related articles and my talk page will. IPadPerson (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you call those additions 'incoherent content' - they look reasonable on the face of it to me. Could you explain what's wrong with them?

Also, although it might have been better for Shane Harper 4 Life to engage with you on the talk page instead of reverting your revert, I think slapping them with edit warring templates was a bit of an overreaction on your part. Better would have been an attempt to engage them and discuss the edits. Additionally, I certainly don't think their reply to you was 'harassment'. Finally, editors are perfectly entitled to remove warnings from their own talk pages - it's taken as acknowledgement that they've read them.

I would encourage you to discuss the issue with the editor on the article's talk page, and only return to request admin help if that doesn't work. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page pertaining their disruptive behavior on that article and talk pages, and the user had yet to reply. IPadPerson (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, IPadPerson, you have yet to reply to Olaf Davis's question. What on earth is wrong with this and this edit? Clearly edits made in preparation for this edit, which therefore consists of verified content (if the edit was done correctly, of course)? And what's your problem here? I mean, I can think of why I would find it problematic, but you haven't given a reason. And sorry Olaf, but before Shane's revert there was this completely over-the-top, dismissive, and unexplained revert (and Twinkle abuse, I might add--Dennis Brown, what was the status of "pulling Twinkle like it's rollback" again?). No, IPadPerson, it is you who was in the wrong here, and why Davey2010, would roll(back) along with you is a mystery to me. As far as I'm concerned, and I welcome other admins here, both of you are guilty of BITE and of Rollback/Twinkle abuse. I just saw the "warning" you left on their talk page, this one, and--how do I say this diplomatically--have you lost your fucking mind? That is SO unacceptable you should have been blocked for it, and if you can't figure out what you did wrong, from the callous and unexplained revert, to the Twinkle abuse, to the edit warring warning after they reverted your unexplained revert, to a ridiculous and overblown "only warning" for this edit--that's harassment??, to the reinstatement of a warning they'd removed (and Davey2010 did the same thing)--if you can't, I repeat, figure out what you did wrong there then you probably deserve to be blocked for unwarranted warnings, edit warring, incivility, overblown charges, and Twinkle abuse, per BOOMERANG. Want to make this better? Apologize to Shane Harper 4 Life. Seriously, Dennis, how do we pull Twinkle? Drmies (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Without regard to the merits here: To my best knowledge, there isn't a normal way to remove Twinkle. Technically, you could remove it from their *.js pages and then full protect all their *.js pages (ugly kludge but should work). I think the standard way to do it (assuming it isn't covered by WP:Discretionary sanctions) is to propose it as a type of "topic ban", and if it has consensus and they use it again, you block them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Brain spasm, you can't do it that way anymore. You can only do it via a topic ban now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave him a warning because 1. I assumed he was spoken too and 2 I thought removing the warnings was disruptive until I remembered it was fine and in all fairness I did self revert & remove the warning. [55] →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure, but didn't you remove it because you thought it was a duplicate? Yes, removing warnings is fine: I would have been much happier if you had undone the revert in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah I wasn't aware I'd reverted incorrectly too, I shall make you happy! :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: @Dennis Brown: - I've apologized to Shane [56] since I clearly didn't show some good faith, 9/10 I do but seems in this case I didn't - No one can be perfect but nonetheless Lesson Learnt . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Davey, I've seen you around and it seems to me you're one of the good ones. I hope you understand why I took issue with the revert (more than with the warning, by the way), and I appreciate what you just said. (And I already reinstated the edit.) Drmies (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I totally understand, I'm not sure why I had reverted but obviously in future I'll be ALOT more careful, Thanks for the kind words means alot, (Damn you beat me to it :) ), →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure why you're apologising to me, Drmies. Yes, I pretty much agree with your assessment. I was a lot milder in my rebuke than I could have been. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Because I disagree with "although it might have been better for Shane Harper 4 Life to engage with you on the talk page instead of reverting your revert", that's all. If the revert had been explained, sure. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Alright, IPadPerson seems no longer interested in this section. Strange! They were all over it at first. Let me tell them, then, that this is a warning. Further abuse of Twinkle, incivility, bullying, and unexplained reverting can be considered a blockable offense. That may seem draconian, but it is important to realize that they already bullied one editor in staying away from an article, and that they apparently do not hesitate bringing someone to the dramah board--though when the tables are turned and the boomerangs start flying, they pretend to not be at home (even though they were active throughout this discussion). A final note on Twinkle--apparently we can't pull Twinkle, and a topic ban for it seems like a lot of work; we'll just consider a block, since such abuse is highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 May 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 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.

Harrassing a New Editor User talk:Nativecultnlaw by User talk:EvergreenFir

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

---

I moved this here to let someone more experienced have a look at this. A new editor is being thrown to the wolves in my opinion. The experienced editor is very aggressive towards the new editor. Attacking new editors only discourages them. It violates the no bite of new comers and assume good faith. Because of this behavior on the parts of some editors I myself will never become a registered editor. I honestly do not know all the policies and procedures but I know when someone is being an ass. What can be done is up to you more experienced administrators. Thanks 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This clearly relates to WP:COIN#Multiple editors related to U of SD School of Law. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Frank Pommersheim

Your recent editing history at Frank Pommersheim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 3RR and have come no where close to it on that article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will let the evidence speak for itself; Also note it does not require 3R's to edit war.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606280411 @ 04:18 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606349505 @ 16:25 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427474 03:41 30 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427517 03:42 30 APR 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.196: You need to read WP:3RR. EvergreenFir has done one revert and one removal of an unsourced item. The first was adding a speedy deletion tag (not a revert). The second was a revert. The third added tags (not a revert), the fourth removed an unsourced claim with significant wp:puffery. I don't see a 3RR issue. Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct the first one was a speedy delete on an article less than 2 hours old that was being worked on by a new editor. See WP:BITE The subject is notable and due diligence was not performed. He then started a COI on the new editor 5 minutes after nominating the article for speedy delete. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion Scroll up to see Speedy delete. Then 12 hours later he reverted 5 edits of the same new editor on an article he wanted deleted. ??? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606292739 He then was shot down for speedy delete by User_talk:Y. He then reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606427246 If this was the only edit it would not be an issue. But it could appear to the new editor or a reasonable outsider that he is being stalked and harrassed. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The CSD was rightfully declined but EvergreenFir has just as much right as anyone else to revert unsourced and weakly sourced content and point out potential issues with the article. No stalking, no harassment, no need to bring this to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 30 April 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.

• Update: just to mention that the new editor in question, along with all the other new editors listed here, has been indefinitely sockblocked by a CheckUser. Oh noes, yet more newbie-biting! Bishonen | talk 20:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

National Library of Pakistan and Citations Are not Copyright violations

National Library of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I have been trying to add and review items for the National Library of Pakistan and it appears that a contributor named Smsarmad uses a dire threat of copyright violation to remove content..then reports me as a vandal. There is nothing wrong with content I have added. it is referenced and not copied. Can someone explain to Smsarmad that his reporting of me as a vandal is bullying behavior. He has no right to "watch" the library site and remove content with a made up accusation of copyright violation. I have no special interest in Pakistan as I am a librarian who wants all libraries to have good Wikipedia entries..so if Smsarmad is thinking there is some issue here related to Pakistan, this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooksky (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2014‎

• I was asked at WP:AIV to bring this issue here so I would like to report User:Brooksky for obvious and repeated copyright violations even after final warning at National Library of Pakistan. The edits in question were REVDELed by an admin after the report at AIV. -- SMS ^Talk 06:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what is happening and if Smsarmad has a secret way of deleting edits I have made. These are not copyrighted edits..theya re footnoted tiems about the library. In all other places Wikipedia retains the edits in the history and mine are gone. There is no reason that citations to important articles should be deleted by Smsarmad. Smsarmad is insiting this is a copyright issue. I am fearful for the future of Wikiepdia if Smsarmad thinks footnotes are copyright violations.Brooksky (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Ahmad, Pervaiz. 2008. "The National Library of Pakistan: an overview." IFLA Journal 34, no. 1: 90-98. Muhammad Waris, B. (2014). National Library of Pakistan as Legal Depository. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal. 45(1), 18-23.

It is not the footnotes that are the issue. There are clear copyright violations here. Also reverting them is User:Lesser Cartographies and User:Parsecboy. If User:Brooksky cannot accept this then he'll end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I know User:Brooksky in real life. I'm going to try to resolve this issue via email. Please try to work with this editor, I believe this matter is just a communication problem. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Jayman85 manually edit warring to push an unacademic POV despite final warnings

Jayman85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jayman85 (whose behavior reminds me a bit too much of Jaredkunz30) has tried (as I count of this post) nine times as of this post to disguise the views of Mormon apologists as equally valid claims by secular academia at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. He's received multiple warnings and explanations from multiple users, and explanations of site guidelines. He replied by accusing everyone else and (non-Mormon) academia of being biased, and claiming that nothing can really know anything about history ([57], [58], [59]). He then resumed edit warring, despite receiving a warning about it.

This guy isn't going to pay attention to anything but a block. I understand that yeah, he probably should be given the chance to improve, enough rope to hang himself with, but I'm pretty sure (given how much his behavior reminds me of Jaredkunz30) he's not going to improve and is only going to start tugging for rope right after getting out of his block.

If he wants to prove me wrong, he needs to realize he's messed up and act on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ian.thomson (who has not returned my discussion on his page) has ignored that the phrase in use 'Mormon Apologists' is biased. My edits have not removed data or knowledge, I removed 'apologists' as this slights the reader to view any dissenting opinion with the original author as wrong. I don't know how someone can claim that given the lack of knowledge anyone has of the timeframe. As far as the related name, I will waste my time in stating I don't know who that username is. Regardless, you cannot claim a neutral stance if you invalidate any dissenting opinion. Jayman85 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have responded. You just didn't bother to check. And how is describing Mormon apologists as Mormon apologists biased? They're Mormon and they're trying to defend a position that no one else accepts. They're Mormon apologists. Only someone who is dishonestly trying to present their claims as equally valid as would have a problem with that.

And as the sources cited state, there's plenty of archaeological evidence for the absence of horses, pigs, etc.

And it is a neutral stance to present stances as invalid if mainstream academia invalidates it. Outside of a few WP:Fringe Mormon pseudo-scholars, no one thinks that the Book of Mormon is right when it says that America used to have horses. If you want to believe that they were there but all archaeological evidence disappeared shortly before white people showed up, that's your right. But if you want to pretend that academia is split on it, that's not jsut lying to yourself, that's lying to others. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And now Jayman85 has tried to delete this report. I take back what I said, he's nothing but a useless vandal, please perma-block him. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jayman85: one more edit like that and you will be blocked for disruption. GiantSnowman 19:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. The word "apologist" is often misinterpreted. Although it is similar to the word "apologize" it does not have the same meaning. An "apologist", by definition, is a person who uses apologetics; it simply means a person who defends a position through the use of information (usually, but not always, a religious belief). It should not be taken to be a pejorative, on the contrary an apologist is someone who tries to use reason and facts to advance a position rather than simple statements of belief or opinion. At worst, labeling someone as an apologist shows that they are an advocate of whatever they are arguing for with apologetics, and thus may be biased toward that position, but it's not the same as labeling someone a kook; an apologist can be a crankpot (just as any scientist or doctor can be) but the term itself does not make that implication. -- Atama頭 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was just the apologist issue in isolation, I'd be more willing to dismiss it as that. He was also trying to make Mormon claims appear to be universal arguments, and turn the evidence of absence of certain animals into mere uncertainty (which he has tried to argue for on different talk pages). In that light, his mission has to be POV-pushing, the apologist issue being just part of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ian.thomson, and the removal of this report is the last straw. Blocked for 31 hours for tendentious editing and vandalism. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

TfD discussions "refactored"

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.

---

Meteor sandwich yum has "refactored" a group of four TfDs [60]. The TfD's are from April 20, and still open. I reverted early [61] [62], but that was undone.

My first care is that the discussions now are distorted and unrecognisable. I have seen no base (like a WP:guideline) that shows this is useful or good practice. It is urgent, in that any closer now could conclude "useless TfD process". I propose (request) that it is reverted, and that user:Meteor sandwich yum is convinced that indeed that is not the way to do. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed diff. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:TPO applies here somewhat. It's not an egregious violation, in that it's not changing the meaning of what anyone else said. It could even be argued that this is allowed as fixing format or layout errors. But I think you're right, this is causing technical problems. MSY's intentions are good, but the execution was bad, and incorrect. WP:TFD itself has a method for combining multiple templates into a single discussion:

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

That is what MSY should be doing, if others agree that it's best. They shouldn't first ask if it's okay then just do it anyway when nobody responds. -- Atama頭 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking how to set up start TfDs. The discussions are disrupted. At this time in TfD process, is bad and may lead any closing admin to conclude "corrupt discussion". This makes it urgent too. A pity you spend time on this, Atama, and did not act into reversion. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes if someone could undo all the refactoring – there are only a couple of edits not due to it that would need to be restored that I can see - then trout MSY for their well meant but disruptive editing it would be appreciated. It needs at least someone non-involved, probably an admin to make it stick (an attempt having already been undone).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd already fixed things back. You'd said that there was nothing that said it was a good practice to do what MSY did, and I thought that it would be helpful to show you what good practices are supposed to be in this situation. I missed where you said "I propose (request) that it is reverted", the way you phrased it (instead of saying you request that it be reverted) reinforced my assumption that you'd already done it (again). I'll revert everything back to a point before it got screwed up. -- Atama頭 21:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, it didn't work. One thing you both need to understand about Administrators, is that we aren't "super editors". Our opinions aren't really more important than that of any other editor (sometimes they're treated that way but officially they aren't). So my changes don't "stick" more than any other editor's would. I'm sorry if your expectations were higher, but for the most part admins are just normal editors with a few extra tools and privileges.

And that's why I instead made the argument suggesting why this was bad, because that is what might resolve this issue. -- Atama頭 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And one thing you need to understand is that you don't threaten people with a disruption block 'cause your edit's been reverted for removing a thread pertinent to the Tfd. Really, where do you get off? — lfdder 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please show where I threatened to block. As an involved editor at that page, I can't act in an administrative role, which includes blocking you. I'm pretty blatant when I threaten to block someone (I'll either use a template or state that any further actions will result in a block). In any event, I'm withdrawing from this altogether, since both my advice and actions haven't helped. How about everyone here just fights it out instead. -- Atama頭 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is the implication, isn't it? The page you so kindly pointed me to says right at the top: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely"....and you did accuse me of disruption. I didn't claim that you'd threatened to personally block me. — lfdder 22:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And another ANI thread gone off track beyond repair. Bad OP reading, internal admins quibble, chasing other admins away, OT diversions (really, OT by admins). Good for evaluation later on, where it belongs: WT:ANI (I can advocate there that WP:ANI has the worst discussion quality at enwiki). For me: not helped. Thanks for all the fish. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (not an admin)

How have you not been helped? Meteor sandwich yum's changes have been reverted like you asked. — lfdder 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks lfdder. Done while I was composing my response. I struck. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Crumbs: please close. And this is the link: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 1 May 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.

ANI on ANI: bad closure

Comment removed by me, despite this being one gigantic storm in a teacup. All of you: go edit an article or something now, please. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

---

See this recent ANI (this page) closure: [63]. So I pose a question. Then 17 admins come in talk all sideways, and admin 18 comes in and solves it. All fine, so I ask to close the thread [64]. Then the closing admin finds it best to name & blame the two who did ask & solve, in the ineditable closing statement. I restate: WP:ANI has the worst discussion quality of enwiki. (Simply said: why did not closed with an easy "OK, Q&A agree") -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: I ask that my and lfdder's name be removed from that closing opinion. Smear someone else please, from your admins throne. Or maybe, maybe, don't smear at all. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You took this to Drmies page and didn't wait for a response, although I did there. I can't quite figure out why you are doing this, why you are complaining, and what you hope to get from this. The close looks pretty consistent with other closes, I don't get the complaint. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. Atama was helping. You were complaining. Then you wanted the section closed. I closed it. The problem is? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Edits by Arjunkrishna90

Arjunkrishna90 has been engaged in an edit war with me on the Wikipedia's page on Arjuna. This individual and I quote states "ALL YOUR EDITS WILL BE REVERETED" on my talk page. I tried to have a rational discussion with this individual and clarify the issues we had to which this person responded by insulting my intelligence and stating that "human stupidity has no limits." I understand the Mahabharata is an ancient text and scholars keep debating about when it was compiled. The consensus now is between 400 BCE and 4 CE. And there is a consensus among scholars and academics that the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune), which is a compilation of the various manuscripts of the epic by scholars at Pune school, to be the most comprehensive an reliable of sources for the Mahabharata. This is what's used in universities that study this great epic. I tried explaining this to Arjunkrishna90 but to no avail. Here are a list of the issues I have with this individual's contributions to the Arjuna page:

He/she makes selective quotes from the Ganguly translation. He/she does this to misinterpret that Arjuna wasn't a "peerless warrior." In the same version of the epic there are numerous instances and by several individuals where Arjuna is referred to as a peerless warrior and "foremost of warriors." I have extensive background on the subject and with this knowledge I state that if you read the scholarly accepted versions of the epic, no character in the Mahabharata is referred to this honorific more times than Arjuna, with the exception of Krishna. Other are referred to as foremost of warriors but not as much Arjuna. I just want the readers of this page to get as true a picture as possible of Arjuna in the epic and Arjunkrishna90 is making this task very difficult.

Arjunkrishna90 inserts erroneous information that is not found in any scholarly compilation of the Mahabharata. For example, he/she refers to an incident in which the sun sets before Karna (another character from the epic) can kill Arjuna. No such act/incident exists in the Mahabharata and I suspect Arjunakrishna90 got this from a TV show on epic that was aired in India in '80s. Arjunakrishna90 is citing this as factual.

Arjunkrishna90 in our exchanges is citing folklore and recent renditions (not accepted by scholars) such as the Sarala Mahabharata, which was written in 15 CE (over 11 centuries after the last recorded text of the original epic) as his/her sources.

Finally, Arjunkrishna90 has no regard for the integrity or veracity of the information he/she posts and inserts information from folklore and TV shows.

I read other user comments on Arjunkrishna90's talk page and I believe other editors had similar concerns regarding this individual.

Again, I did tried discussing these issues with this individual but he/she keeps accusing me of Vandalism and refuses to engage in scholarly and civil discussion on the subject.

I hope you'll consider my request.

The following are the links to the pages to the changes I made and Arjunkrishna90 keeps reverting

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjuna&diff=606582277&oldid=606582237

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjuna&diff=606582237&oldid=606582194

Thank you, Thamaragirl (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot find his editor's talk page on Wikipedia anymore and do not know how to notify him/her about this discussion. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

To editor Thamaragirl: A user's talk page is located at User talk:Username. So this user's talk page is at User talk:Arjunkrishna90; that is where you should place the notice. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 01:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, deletion of sourced content

User:William J. Clark, also known as 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8, 66.81.241.77, and 66.249.173.226, has engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, and deleting of sourced content on Street Artists Program of San Francisco on a continual basis from February 10, 2014[65] to the present[66]. While the article is extensively sourced with reliable sources, Clark claims that these sources are inaccurate and that the truth is with him[67] [68] [69] [70]. Clark has also persisted in adding extensive, extraneous content emphasizing his personal role in the founding of the Street Artists Program[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] and giving plugs to his friends[79] [80]. In two egregious posts on the talk page on April 2[81] and April 28[82], Clark offered to stop reverting sourced material if a sentence could be reinstated citing his brother's and another friend's involvement in the program.

Several editors[83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] as well as two vandalism patrollers[91] [92] [93] have continually reverted Clark's unsourced and self-aggrandizing edits, citing policy, but he persists in reverting their reversions [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] Several times on the talk page, the vandalism patrollers and others have attempted to explain to Clark applicable policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SELFPROMOTION, and WP:CONSENSUS[102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110], but Clark keeps reverting sourced content that he contends is inaccurate [111]. At this point, I believe a WP:TBAN is in order. I'd also like to note that Clark was editing from 3 different IP addresses before opening his own account on April 10[112], and he may very well turn to another IP address to continue edit warring if his account is blocked. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. If you see any IP edits of this sort, report them here or at my talk page for a WP:DUCK block, and don't forget to ask for an extension of the account's block. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the process, I initially asked for a "block", but I think I meant a WP:TBAN (I corrected my request, above). The user is now only editing under his named account. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that you were asking for anything, per se. All I saw was a lot of evidence saying "this guy has been really disruptive" and asking for admin action, and I thought a block most appropriate. If you actively disagree with the block, I'll be happy to talk about that, and willing to consider reducing or removing the block. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to emphasize User:Yoninah's request that we need some type of page protection for the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. User:William J. Clark is the most disruptive individual that I’ve met on Wikipedia in seven years. He shows no interest in working with Wikipedia’s most basic rules, and only seeks out articles where there is an opportunity to insert his own name (also notice the Sea serpent article). With a false sense of entitlement he consistently ignores the advice of experienced Wiki editors ( User:NeilN, User:Seaphoto, User:K6ka, User:Yoninah ) and repetitively deletes sourced material while attempting to insert unsouced opinions of his own. A quick reading of his words on the article’s Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ] reveals what we have been dealing with. IMO, it might make sense to first block William Clark from the article, and if he posts again in the future with more Anonymous IP Addresses, then we should consider a greater blocking mechanism.James Carroll (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I read Yoninah's comments, Clark's only used a few IPs; it would be easier to block them than to protect the page. Am I right, or have I misunderstood something? The only reason I blocked was his actions in the article; I didn't look at most of his edits to the talk page, since the ones I checked were (at worst) annoying but not outright disruptive. Unless he's actively disrupting the talk page, I see no reason to restrict his use of it (aside from times like now, when a block is needed), since we can normally ignore him; do you disagree? Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that permanently blocking the known IP Addresses and William Clark from the article and its talk page might solve the problem, and if he returns under new IP Addresses we should consider more drastic actions. Have you found the time to look at Clark's many disorganized rants within that Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ]] ? His verbose, unformatted, and repetitive rants on the Talk Page disrupt the normal flow of discussion, and fatigue sincere attempts from admins like User:k6ka who attempt to familiarize Clark with the basic methods of Wikipedia, only to later find Clark ignoring all suggestions and deleting whatever sourced content he chooses. He has been so persistent over the article's short lifetime that it's impossible to ignore him – by the sheer volume of his rants he has become the dominant voice of the Talk Page. IMO, the law of diminishing returns suggests that this very obsessed individual, who shows no sign of restraint or moderation, is much more of a problem than an asset to this article. To let him remain will only threaten an acceptable DYK article and additionally fatigue and discourage earnest editors from participating at Wikipedia.James Carroll (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not an admin - just a reviewer and a rollbacker. I say that indefinitely blocking Clark's IP address should be used as an absolute last resort. For now, let's try a temporary topic ban first, and then escalate as needed. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Attention might want to be paid to Inquiringmindswanttoknow who displays the same verbosity and desire to give Clark credit that User:William J. Clark does (example).. He stopped editing on March 24th, the Clark account started on April 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the possibility of block evasion, is there anything you think we need to worry about with the older account? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, just potential run of the mill sockpuppetry. I didn't connect the two accounts until now, when I reviewed how I got involved in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, In the interests of providing extensive diffs, I may not have stated the problem clearly. The main problem is not multiple accounts, but disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring. I first came across this page in my role as a DYK reviewer, and thoroughly copyedited the page on February 23[113] to make sure it complied with policy. Since then, the page has not been able to be developed in a meaningful way due to the constant edit warring, deletion of sourced material, and addition of unsourced material (specifically, anything mentioning Bill Clark) by User:William J. Clark. Moreover, editors and vandalism patrollers are spending an inordinate amount of time explaining policy on the talk page (see talk page thread), after which Clark goes ahead and reverts anything on the page that he doesn't agree with. Clark has a clear conflict of interest on this page, as he was involved in the formation of the Street Artists Program, and is uninterested in complying with policy or editing in a neutral manner. He must be banned from this page and this topic. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Clark claimed that he stayed at a relative's house for a while and thus explains why he edited under another IP address. On the WP:AGF principle, I think he's telling the truth. Sockpuppetry isn't my big concern - the main concern, as Yoninah said, is the edit warring and disruptive editing. He may need a topic ban, temporary or indefinite, as he has a high Conflict of Interest in the subject and persists in "Putting up the right version"; the excuse many edit warriors use. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend: With the lifting of the 24-hour block, Clark has posted that he is proud of being blocked, perceiving it as a "badge of honor" for his acts of civil disobedience.[114] His behavior has far exceeded the bounds of Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: What Yoninah said. This type of behavior is clearly unacceptable; defiance and deliberate breaking of the rules, not to mention being proud of the consequences that arise afterwards. Such editing patterns are extremely disruptive. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I ignored you, but for some reason I didn't get the ping. The badge-of-honor thing has changed my thinking: I had planned to re-block the guy if he made any additional problematic edits in mainspace (i.e. one-strike-you're-out), but letting him edit freely in talkspace, since we can ignore the guy. However, this comment makes it clear that he doesn't care and will keep going indefinitely: apparently he'll come back whenever a block ends. With that in mind, the only way to prevent an indefinite returner is with an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know if he shows up again under an IP address. In the meantime, we can finally start polishing up this article. Yoninah (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Recurrance of disruptive Nazi-related editing by User:Hoops gza

User:Hoops gza has previously caused problems by adding individuals who do not meet the criteria for List of Nazis to that page and Category:Nazis, even going so far as to remove those criteria from the page and claim that they'd been added by a random editor (rather than by the creator of the list article, to prevent its deletion). He has also created an absurd number of redirects in non-English languages on the English WP, arguing that the rules against this didn't apply because the topic was special (the Holocaust). He's at it again. This time he's also creating obsessively-specific categories such as Category:Nazis executed by Albert Pierrepoint. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Let me get this straight. I added the Category:Nazis to people who were verifiable Nazi Party members (you can take a look at the German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:NSDAP-Mitglied to see how this is done). Ergo, they were Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this before, at length. Are you saying that you cannot remember this discussion, that you do not understand it, or that you refuse to accept it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I can say for certain that Hoops gza was incorrect at List of Nazis, the article's creator was Dr. Blofeld, and Dr. Blofeld was the person who originally added that language. The statement that Hoops gza made in this edit summary is nonsense (easily seen by anyone checking the article history). However, that edit war ended over a month ago, so it's not really worth bringing up anymore.

I'm also not sure what's problematic about those redirects, I don't dispute that there are "rules" being broken but I can't see where they are.

The category you mentioned above is at CfD, so the fate of the category should be settled there. The guideline for creating categories is here. I'm not quite sure, however, what determines whether or not a category should exist, and therefore what would be an excessive number of frivolous and/or redundant categories. To my eye, I don't really see what's wrong with these categories, I've seen some pretty crazy category creation sprees be reported to this board but this doesn't strike me as one. To look at all of the existing categories that Hoops gza has created, see this list. -- Atama頭 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

His edit-warring is relevant because he's just restarted it.[115] [116] The garbage redirects demonstrate his disregard for Wikipedia rules to suit his own agenda. The frivolous/obsessive categories are merely supporting evidence of his disruptiveness. And his comment above ... is simply baffling. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he is asserting that the discussion never took place. [117] For someone who engages this freely in historical revision/denial to be editing articles about the Holocaust is cause for concern. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried communicating with him; he just ignores me, off in his own alternate reality. Could someone at least suggest what I might do about this problem editor? Reverting his edits is getting tiresome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

More uncommunicative reverts.[118][119] More garbage redirects.[120] Please advise me on whether I should continue to try to deal with this problem editor (and if so how), of if I should just stop wasting my time asking for help and let him do whatever the hell he wants. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely a problem - and doesn't play nice with others. If ANI doesn't do anything (and I think a topic ban may be in order) than an RfC may be the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Laughable, man. Because you two are experts on the topic, right?Hoops gza (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also weighing in here that at August Landmesser he has resumed doing something that was discussed on the article talk page in March with no one agreeing with his position - for him to deny the discussion occurred is concerning, as is his position regarding the List of Nazis articles (which also arose in that discussion). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Hoops gza for 72 hours, noting that there was also a related AN3 report currently open about this case. Not sure if that will be sufficient to get the point across though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it humorous that the header at the top of the Nazi category page says "It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." The number of pages on individuals in that category greatly exceeds the number of subcategories or non-individual articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also welcome comment on his exhaustive creation of redirects (e.g. random phrases from "I Am the Walrus", or 2nd wife of Herman Goering and permutations thereof, or Holocaust in other languages even those with non-Latin alphabets with no apparent connection to the subject, etc). I know what Wikipedia policy is (not to do this), but I'm not sure if it's considered disruptive or not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried looking at Special:Contributions/Hoops gza to see examples of "walrus" redirects, but there is a lot of hyperactivity there, including the creation of a bunch of redirects and a category that appear dubious to me, so I gave up. If anyone familiar with the norms of such creation has the strength to provide a few examples, perhaps a topic ban would assist. In view of the "Ergo, they were Nazis" comment above (on top of the discussion at Talk:August Landmesser#"Nazi" from March), I would support a Nazi-related category topic ban to prevent future disruption and misuse of the category system. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user's last 500 edits to the article space, the Walrus group appears to start with Expert texpert at 22:11 on 27 April; there's also a group of redirects to A Clockwork Orange (disambiguation) starting with Ultra-violence at 20:24 on 26 April and a shorter set of redirects to Full Metal Jacket starting with This is my rifle this is my gun at 03:39 on 27 April. I think the redirects to Göring's wives (1st wife, First wife, Goering, Göring, etc., etc.) to "dad" and "mum" of Mozart and Beethoven (composer's names both in short form and spelled out) and to misspellings of Thames and the different permutations of abbreviations and non-abbreviations for Natzweiler-Struthof are excessive, but I don't see a similar problem with the Porajmos categories; it's legitimate to distinguish that specific genocide. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all of his redirects (and other edits) are problematic. But so many of them are utterly useless. Some examples from 27 April include Pornagraphic priestess [sic], Crabalocker fish wife (also "fishwife"), Expert, texpert, choking smokers (also without commas), and I am the egg man, they are the egg men, I am the walrus (+5 variations on punctuation). On 26 April, there were about 70 Clockwork-Orange redirects using phrases containing "ultra violence"/"ultraviolence"/"ultra-violence" (some of which don't even appear in the film or the novel), almost 50 redirects from variations on the names of Moatzart, Wolfgang Amadeus [sic] and Baytoven, Ludwig van [sic] and awkward phrases referring to their relatives. On 25 April were three dozen creative redirects to Erwin Rommel. In March he created redirects within WP-EN from مرگ انبوہ (Urdu), ഹോളോകോസ്റ്റ് (Malayalam), হলোকস্ট (Bengali), 홀로코스트 (Korean), and dozens of other non-English terms to Holocaust, as if there were circumstance in which they could be useful. (When this was challenged, he replied "I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason."[121]) He's mostly just wasting his own time with these, but they set a poor example of how redirects are intended to be used. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging Johnuniq since examples were provided, and to prevent this from being archived; I don't think the discussion reached a conclusion. His block ended and he's started a new discussion at Talk:List of Nazis. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• The current strategy at Talk:List of Nazis#Criteria, Round 2 appears to be to persist until all objections to their changes are overcome, and their contributions from two hours ago ([122]) shows the creation of 37 redirects to Clockwork Orange pages. The pointless discussions and redirects are no help for the encyclopedia. What topic ban should be proposed? Something like "Hoops gza is indefinitely topic banned from all edits or discussion regarding categories relating to Nazism, and from the creation of redirects based on misspellings"? Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Since when is there anything wrong with holding a discussion on a talk page? I'm not persisting on anything, it's just that the original discussion was inconclusive, so please calm down. You're overreacting.Hoops gza (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just stop creating any redirects, for now. Most of the ones you've created today are similarly useless, or of very little value. Failing to take discussions like this one seriously will likely lead to a wide-ranging topic ban. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:GagaARTPOP

This user has been continuously making non-constructive edits to Lady Gaga articles after being told to stop. Most recently, the user uploaded this copyrighted image to Gaga's main article claiming it was fair use. User also persistently inserted tour date info for ArtRave: The Artpop Ball repeatedly (this being the most recent) despite being reverted and asked multiple times by myself and IndianBio to stop as it went against WP:SYNTH. Admin C.Fred asked for the user to discuss on talk page, which the user refused. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously did not think it would come down to this, but yeah, repeated warnings have fallen on deaf ears, and the user runs amock doing these non-constructive edits, including uploading a series of copyright violating images. A trout slap of some sorts is needed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the warnings we previously gave were already trout slaps, and doubt another simple trout slap would do much. Could another admin please consult the user? Comments from myself and IndianBio don't seem to be acknowledged. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SPA removing AFD tags and adding unsourced material to BLP

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

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

Subject was brought to the attention of Wikipedia:BLP/N#Akinwunmi_Ambode.

SPA user adding unsourced material to BLP, and removing AFD tags. Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User continues deleting AFD tags [123] despite warnings. Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

‎Ryulong gave final warning and restored AFD tag. Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A new SPA just pops out of nowhere to do the same as this user: Sevla Inad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably a SP. Can the article be semi-protected? Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Protected at least for the duration of the AFD. They can make their case there if they want. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Villageboyban for 24 hours as they continue to edit-war to remove the AfD template.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A50000

Last month, I reported A50000 (talk · contribs) here because of his disruption at Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as seen here. Since then, all he has done is make half-assed attempts at arguing with me over the pedantry of my claim that he was edit warring while constantly claiming that his version is correct and that he was not violating WP:CONSENSUS. After his last message, I gave him a warning not to bother me again over this matter. Without my knowing, he edited the archived thread two days ago and today sent me an identical version of the message that he sent me earlier in the month. It is blatantly clear that A50000 is no longer here to work on this project collaboratively. All he has done is gotten into petty disputes on issues regarding communism and socialism and when asked to drop the stick he does not, multiple times. I don't know if this is because he is a WP:SPA, it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he's a case of WP:NOTHERE, or just a lack of competence. Drmies previously said that he would possibly block him, but because A50000 has not been disruptive in the article space, he saw no need for it at the time. I should not have to deal with this editor coming back once a week to say "why was I wrong" or "it takes two to tango", blatantly ignoring anything I've said to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 28 April/18:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to leave him a warning but I noticed that he did almost the exact same thing to RolandR in March. This continuing harassment of editors combined with persistent edit-warring shows that they have a battleground mentality incompatible with Wikipedia. I'm following up on Drmies' previous suggestion to block indefinitely and implementing it. -- Atama頭 19:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

March of last year but thank you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant March of 2013, that would have been a nice little detail to include. -- Atama頭 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats and COI issues

• Peter rees tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Peter rees tv claims to be Peter Rees, the subject of Peter Rees (producer). He has made some contentious edits to the article, as well as MythBusters, that have been reverted, both as an IP and through his recently registered account but he seems to have some valid concerns. What brings me here though is the legal threat that he made in a post at the Help Desk, where he said "I will be forced to take legal action against those who publish this story if it is not corrected".[124] There are also concerns that, while he claims to be Peter Rees, he has not verified that his is indeed Peter Rees. As a new editor he is probably unaware of the various issues, although I have informed him that editing Peter Rees (producer) is a clear conflict of interest. Given the legal threat it may be prudent to block the user, at least until he has verified that he is who he claims to be. He probably also needs some guidance in other areas but after the issues at Heleen Mees, I'm really not up to it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, there is a more significant concern about WP:BLP, and I had posted this at WP:BLPN. The user who claims to be the subject has been reverted, putting back into the article this: "He left the show shortly after a dangerous electrical prank was played on a MythBusters crew member. Rees ordered the crew to connect a 100,000 volt electric fence transformer to a show prop, and then convince Adam Savage to touch the device." With this "Adam Savage on His 100,000-Volt Cattle Prod Shock". FORA.tv. 22 May 2010. as the supposed source. Having seen the post at the Help desk, I've now taken it out of the article. If he is the subject we should be more forgiving of his outburst given the poor quality of the source, the seriousness of the BLP accusation and the reversions. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's a legal threat. But WP:DOLT is still important here, and DeCausa is right that the statement sourced to the YouTube clip should be removed. If a better source presents itself, then that's another matter. It's likely that the safest way to present such a claim, since the facts are going to be disputed, would be to attribute it to whomever claims it... that is "According to X, Rees did Y". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue that DeCausa mentions is no longer an issue because the claim has been quite rightly removed from the article. The previous reversions of the editor have been made for quite understandable reasons. These edits, as an IP, removed the original claim and replaced it with original research, both related and unrelated to the incident as well as adding a series of inappropriate claims about the hosts of MythBusters. In effect he substituted one bad claim for others. This edit completely destroyed the article. A check through the article's history shows the same edits, probably by the same editor using different IPs, being made previously.[125][126] Yes, WP:DOLT is relevant but it's an essay, but Wikipedia:No legal threats is a policy with legal considerations, so it has more authority than WP:DOLT. This editor has edited Wikipedia since at least 2010 and should realise there are better ways to do things than what he has done. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issue is only not an issue now because I took out it today. When he made the legal threat, it was still there. At that point the history of the problematic BLP wording was as follows. It was introduced 23 July 2013 [127], he removed it on 9 April 2014 [128] in an entirely inappropriate way by adding inappropriate material. On 29 April 2014 [129] it was restored at the same time as his inappropriate additions were removed. So, today, he again removed it [130] but again included inappropriate additions to his removal. It was once again restored [131] at the same time as his additions were removed. He then removed it [132] but this time without adding any of his additions but it it was then nevertheless restored[133]. So on 29 April and 2 May he had seen this poorly sourced BLP issue restored three times by Wikipedia editors. Removing his additions does not excuse the reintroduction of the material that WP:BLP tells us should have been removed. Absolutely WP:DOLT applies. DeCausa (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I should say that WP:DOLT and WP:NLT are not mutually exclusive. The point is that while legal threats are not acceptable from a behavioral standpoint, when one is made, the solution is not to revert, block, and ignore. The reverts are understandable insofar as the edits that were reverted did a whole lot more than just remove that one claim... but one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, if we start talking about blocking the subject of an article for a breach of WP:NLT, we at least owe it to them to not have provoked that legal threat by breaching WP:BLP. I know, I know...two wrongs don't make a right... But it feels inequitable. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that the editor actually is the article's subject. While I'd like to assume in good faith that the editor is who we say he is, we have no actual evidence that he is, which is why he should be blocked until he provides such proof, especially given the legal threat. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

True that there is no evidence, but looking at the edits it would seem unlikely that anyone but the subject (or maybe his representative) would be interested in making them. That doesn't seem a reason to block to me. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the YouTube video and knowing that there is only one producer who is no longer with the series, it is unlikely that anyone but the subject is who Adam Savage was referring to, but that's not enough evidence to keep the claim in the article. Nor should we allow an editor to claim he is a notable subject without evidence. Anyone could create User:Peter Rees. If it is the subject's representative then he should be blocked immediately, as that's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Username policy as usernames that impersonate other people are not permitted. In any case, a block would not meant to be permanent and would be lifted when the editor confirms his identity via OTRS. WP:LEGAL says "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding" and there is an outstanding legal threat. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Peter rees tv and done my best to explain WP:IMPERSONATE and proper identification through OTRS, while being careful to disable autoblock and to permit the creation of another account. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive, authoritarian editor

I am reporting an editor (User:Winkelvi) who has, over the past year, been a huge disruption to the development of a series of articles. The user refuses to work with other users and is quick to attack those who try to resolve disputes via Request For Comments. The user has used abusive language and has made editing these pages a true hassle. The user has not added any material to the pages over the past year but denies being a disruption. This user's apparent only purpose with these pages is to prevent the addition of new content and rewrite sentences, often times distorting the intended meaning of the sentences and introducing grammatical errors. Nearly all content added to the articles on Template:Sound of Contact since their creation has been subject to a veto attempt by User:Winkelvi. Even the very creation of the Dimensionaut article was argued against by User:Winkelvi. The user has dismissed WP:CONSENSUS in the past and expressed hostility towards other editors, for example here: [134]. When talks are taken to that user's talk page, the comments are swiftly deleted; i.e. here [135]. Every discussion we seem to have escalates into this user accusing myself or, in one case, User:Spanglej, of various issues, often in the most hypocritical manner. Here is another instance of another editor speaking about User:Winkelvi's hostility: [136]. Many discussions have been had, and there has been no resolution. The current discussion prompting this notice is: [137]

That entire page (in addition to my talk page, and the talk pages of the affiliated articles), meanwhile, is evidence of that user's repeated attempts to dispute and block every addition made to this article and its related articles. This user has been reported on this noticeboard twice already for similar conduct:

First report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=561690390#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_No_action.29).

Second report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=565703341#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_Warned.29).

This user has only done harm to the process of developing these articles over the past year. I request a ban on this user (User:Winkelvi) from editing the articles found on Template:Sound of Contact in addition to any new affiliated articles that may be added to that template in the future, as the user appears to have an interest in preventing these articles from growing, and refuses to collaborate with others involved. The user has in the past week alone been involved in numerous incidents attempting to block content from being added:[138], [139] (a three-month process to add a paragraph of content). As someone who is undoubtedly frustrated with this and who appears to be one of the only editors working on these articles, this has made me very weary of having to face this obstacle with every revision. Every attempt to add to the construction of the page is a lengthy, difficult process involving the same editor.Vuzor (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect admins to do? Howunusual (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My request is a WP:TBAN (a topic ban) as specified here [140] and here [141]. I don't know where else on Wikipedia that editor participates, so in fairness to that editor I think this is a possible solution. Vuzor (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed to anyone involved in a topic proposing sanctions on other editors. If you have a legitimate complaint, lay it out and let uninvolved editors develop suitable sanctions.--v/r - TP 01:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I apologize; this has happened numerous times, so I am quite frustrated. I will wait for recommendations. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have much to say in response other than Vuzor, in my assessment, simply doesn't like having his prose and content changed or challenged. Strangely, just a few days ago he placed an apology on my talk page for past disagreements we'd had and said he appreciated my help. He further stated he hoped there were no hard feelings between us. Then only a few days later, we end up here and everything he said about no hard feelings is history. It is, however, a good example of his passive-aggressive communication style with me over the last year. So passive-aggressive that I have seriously wondered if Vuzor isn't a User Name for two people, because he can be complimentary and cooperative one minute then aggressive, angry, uncooperative and unreasonable the next. My issues with Vuzor's editing have been that he has a tendency to overwrite content, use lofty language, and add extraneous detail and wording. He also has consistently added content that makes articles about music, musicians, and bands read like fan sites. After being angered that I copy edited content he added at Dimensionaut, he opened an RfC at the article talk page where he promptly began to chastise me and bring up old issues from a year back where he perceives I wronged him. The premise of the RfC he opened was supposed to be about content. He chose to abandon that premise from the jump and, instead, began personally attacking and making the RfC about me. Numerous times I reminded him that the RfC was about content and edits, not editors, and asked him to stop. He refused (as evidenced by his comments there). That RfC is still open, by the way. Would coming here without closing the RfC be considered forum shopping? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You dropped a link right in the middle of my report here. I've since fixed that. Diff of that can be found here: [142]. A little bit of proofreading may have prevented it. I don't believe there is more to say from me in regards to your comments here. My initial report here, I feel, is itself a response to the text above. User:Winkelvi aimed accusations from the very beginning of that RfC.Vuzor (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history to see who wrote it, but the Sound of Contact article looks awfully promotional to me (and why is there a navigation template associated with a band whose debut album was in May 2013?). Does the name Winkelvi have anything to do with the Winklevii duo? If not, there is a potential for confusion here. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The promotional tone to Vuzor's editing has been my major concern since he started working on the Sound of Contact article as well as the associated articles. I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now this is an outright lie. The only incidents involving the template involved you removing it from member Dave Kerzner's page, citing "the page is about Kerzner, not Sound of Contact" (see here: [143], [144], discussion on talk page: [145]) and then attempting to change the name of one of the tours on the template to something that did not exist (see here: [146]). When member Dave Kerzner left the band, you removed the template from the page again; I added it back as he was clearly on the template and was important to the band's history. You gave no response. (see: [147]). There was absolutely no conversation or even an issue about the template's existence, so don't lie about it.Vuzor (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is this alleged lie in my response? You said it yourself: I gave no respnse. That lack of response was me letting it go, as I stated. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your response above: "I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)"... That never happened. The entire "incident" you speak of never occurred. Your statement here at 18:51, 29 April 2014 contains a significant lie.Vuzor (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could have that incident confused with the all of the other dramatic tantrums you've thrown over me copy editing your content inclusions and removal of blatantly promotional and fan cruft content at Sound of Contact and its associated articles. Nonetheless, my lack of response was simply me moving on and letting it go, as I said, and my recollection remains that you threw a tantrum. There is no intentional "lie" being told. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you know what you're talking about. Don't just loosely throw accusations, particularly about incidents that never occurred.Vuzor (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I always thought "Winkelvi" was "Winkel the 6th". But I don't see anything problematic about the username, there's a notable difference between "Winkelvi" and "Winklevii". -- Atama頭 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also comment on the Sound of Contact article. Winkelvi did not originally create it, but has done a lot of work on it, including removing a large amount of promotional and/or unsourced information over the article's history. Perhaps it needs improvement but it could be worse than it is. -- Atama頭 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I must note that User:Spanglej, a more experienced editor than User:Winkelvi or I, oversaw the initial development of this series of articles. In the case of the article Dimensionaut, administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee also oversaw the intial stages of the article. In an early incident involving the article, User:Winkelvi flagged the article for WP:CSD (speedy deletion); administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee (his user page at the time here: [148]) removed the flag, citing that User:Winkelvi's criteria were not valid. User:Winkelvi undid User:Boing! said Zebedee's revision. Administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee then told User:Winkelvi: "When a speedy deletion request has been declined, it must not be put back - go for WP:AFD if you think it needs deletion." This can be seen here: [149], [150]. To quell this controversy, User:Boing! said Zebedee and I decided to move the page's development to my user sandbox: [151]. Throughout the article's development, User:Boing! said Zebedee vetoed several of User:Winkelvi's revisions: [152], [153]. As a measure of WP:GOODFAITH and per User:Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion, I asked for reviews of the page before User:Boing! said Zebedee moved the page to Dimensionaut: [154]. These articles were created with the supervision of more experienced editors.

As cited in the initial report here, User:Spanglej was later attacked by User:Winkelvi: [155].

"Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"

In another instance [156]:

"Span, your comments started out by quoting me, not by addressing the article. That says you were more interested in me than giving constructive criticism to anything else on this talk page. Claiming I'm "hounding" (which you've disguised by saying "ongoing hostility" instead) is complete bullshit. If the nature of the model is founded on trust, then Vuzor has damaged that trust over and over with the "community". But please, do continue to enable him and send the message that he's justified and the victim here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"

Vuzor (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanglej wasn't overseeing anything. She was there just like I was, just like Vuzor was. Boing wasn't overseeing anything, either. He was just there like the rest of us. As far as the speedy deletion issue, I have no idea why it's being brought up, why Vuzor thinks it has any bearing on anything. It was a simple misunderstanding on my part regarding procedure, nothing more. Boing didn't have an issue with it, we worked it out immediately, that was all there was to it. And just for the record and complete disclosure: that article written by Vuzor ended up being deleted because it was about a music album by Sound of Contact that had not yet been released (the article was put up again about a month later). Interesting how Vuzor left that out while retelling his version of the drama. But, Vuzor is portraying it all dramatically for what purpose? And who cares if Boing "vetoed" several of my revisions? That's what cooperative editing is about. There was no "supervision" or oversight occurring as Vuzor claims. His need to re-hash stuff that's nearly a year old is puzzling to me, especially when you consider he left the following on my talk page ten days ago: "Hi, Winkelvi. I apologize for some of the past disagreements we've had, and I'd very much like to say I value your opinion and appreciate your help. Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us." found here: [157] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Boing's vetoing of your revisions has everything to do with your approach to these articles. Spanglej's attempt to mediate (as cited in [250]) was met with your hostile response. When I spoke to you regarding how we can collaborate with one another and work things out, you responded (see here: [158]):

"Your continual lecturing is truly tedious and boring. I'm sure you will now cite AGF and CIVIL, but I really don't care. Please move on. Again, have a nice day (and please walk away from the horse that's now stinking and becoming a fly-farm). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)"

And here is another incident in which User:Winkelvi refused to work with User:Spanglej and I (see: [159]):

You have just threatened me with the three-revert rule on my talk page, Winkelvi. I count five reverts from you within the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of multiple editors. That's almost twice the violation. You've already broken the rule and tried to control the way the page is being edited, reverting not only my edits by Spanglej's. Your hypocrisy and authoritarian approach continue to amaze me. If I were to revert your edit myself, I would be breaking the three-edit rule, but considering you have consciously broken that rule and almost doubled it, I am reporting this; you had the presence of mind to have that link while reverting my edits and had already broken the rule; while we could have waited for a fourth user to make a decision (after all, two users disagreeing with you isn't enough) so you wouldn't have edited a fifth time, you edited anyway, consciously challenging the rule a fifth time just moments before you had the nerve to threaten me with a hypocritical three-revert warning. Vuzor (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi. A band release an album and then immediately go on tour and you are disputing that the album and the tour are related. In no way are the details of a tour promotional puff. You'd be hard pressed to find an article about any major band or album that doesn't mention its tour. True Blue (Madonna album) (GA), I Am... Sasha Fierce (GA), Achtung Baby (FA), OK Computer (FA), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (GA), (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (GA), Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (GA). I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a crap what you personally believe, look at the band's own website and you will see that the tour isn't for promoting the album. There are scores of other bands who will be performing, and there is nothing on their website that states it is an album promoting tour. NOTHING. Everything Vuzor has come up with to make that conclusion is based on assumption, original research, and synthesis. Those are the facts. Your personal opinion of me or anything else is irrellevant. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)''

These are further examples of User:Winkelvi's conduct. Here is an instance of User:Winkelvi removing acceptable sources, only to have them replaced by a more experienced editor (see: [160], [161]. And here is User:Spanglej specifically advising User:Winkelvi and I that primary sources are acceptable, and clearly supervising the process (see: [162]).Vuzor (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is not only borderline forum-shopping with this report, he's now canvassing for it: [163], [164]. I still fail to see and understand where Vuzor thinks his walls of text and examples are leading us. Can you say "stale" in regard to all of these things, nearly a year old? Whatever might be done by an administrator in regard to Vuzor's year-old butt-hurt over all of this ancient history would be punitive, not preventative at this point. Someone asked him yesterday right after he filed this report: what do you want administrators to do? I think it's still a valid question. Valid, because it seems clear (to me, at least) that Vuzor needs vindication, he needs me to be "punished", in spite of the message he left me 10 days ago that said he is sorry for our past disagreements, values my opinion, appreciates my help, and hopes there are no hard feelings between us. At this point, I'm pretty much done with responding to the drama Vuzor is putting up here because none of it seems to have any point that would serve the community positively. I have to wonder how much longer it will go on. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:AN/I, as the two users have both been named in this thread, I believed it was only right to notify them that they have been discussed here. There is no expectation from me for them to participate. It was only a gesture of good will so as not to speak of incidents involving them without their knowledge (in my general opinion, speaking behind the backs of others is often wrong to do, and in this case there is no reason to withhold that knowledge from them).

My message to you at 07:46 on April 19, 2014 was a gesture of good will in hopes that you would become more willing to work together and move beyond our past differences (see: [165]). I provided an apology when I did not need to (and perhaps foolishly so). It was an act of WP:DGF ("encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith"). The fact you have cited that now here for the complete opposite purpose is disappointing.Vuzor (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is correct, notifying someone neutrally (with a template) when they've been mentioned on ANI is not canvassing. There is no violation, if anything it's polite to do so. -- Atama頭 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, Atama. That's not how I read the noticeboard notification policy nor policy on canvassing, but I'll take your word for it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Update (1 May 2014): It appears User:Winkelvi removed an entire section of content on Simon Collins that was recently approved in a Request for Comment session. The edit history can be seen here: [166]. One of the revisions can be seen here: [167]. All of the content in question was approved in an RfC on that article's talk page last month (see: [168]). This goes completely against the consensus reached in the RfC. This user even added a "citation needed" template when no such template was required. This is unacceptable behavior and could perhaps be considered vandalism at this point.Vuzor (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi has now reverted my reversion of that user's vandalism (see: [169]). The comment that user has left is: "Reverted 2 edits by Vuzor (talk): No, the content I removed wasn't "approved" and consensus can change. (TW))" This is ridiculous, considering the content was approved. Consensus has not changed, so the excuse that "consensus can change" is complete nonsense. This has become ridiculous. I have asked in my comment that User:Winkelvi explain his or her reasoning for this, and I have warned the user not to break WP:3RR. If the user breaks this rule, I will open a case in the Edit Warring noticeboard as this appears as that would suggest a very active dispute happening. This type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable.Vuzor (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A "whole section of content" was not removed. A portion of irrelevant and gossipy, tabloid-like content was removed. It was not recently "approved", an editor thought it was fine months ago. Consensus changes, and what I removed is most definitely not pertinent to Collins', but more pertinent to his father, and should not be in the Simon Collins article. The other portions edited and taken out of the article were copyedited and removed due to irrelevance, lofty language, over-stating, and un-encyclopedic material. Some of it was definite puffery, bordering on peacocking. In no way are my edits to this article (or any article I edit) "vandalism". Vuzor, however, is now edit warring and has twice reverted every single edit wholesale that I made at the article over the last hour.[170] I have placed and edit warring warning template on his talk page: [171] He has reverted a total of three times at the article: (1) [172]; (2) [173]; (3) [174]. Vuzor, Atama stated a few days ago that I had removed a lot of promotional content from Sound of Contact, that's what I did with Simon Collins tonight, as well. An IP user stated the same. No one other than you has been anxious to do anything to this report over three days now. That should send a message to you about anyone caring about this report. And frankly, I'm surprised you decided to exhibit edit warring behavior in such a big way at the Collins article while this report is still here. But, edit war you did, and you can't take it back now. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Forum Shopping Vuzor is now most certainly forum shopping. He just filed a frivilous 3RR on me. I only reverted once, as I stated above, he reverted three times. 3RR report here: [175] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What you state to be "puffery" has, in every case cited here, been deemed by others to be not puffery. Editors User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Spanglej and others have reverted your edits for that reason. There can be other opinions than yours, which is the reason for the RfC. Consensus ruled against that opinion. Performing a bulk removal of that content after the decision was made is vandalism. The discussion in the RfC pertaining to this content is as follows:

"Comment. On a first pass view my take is that most of it should be used, perhaps reworked a bit. A good article would include items that arguably can be seen as trivial by others. Certainly items tied to his life as a music performer is relevant. The lawsuit statement should be aligned with a follow-up as to what happened with it, dismissed, settled, etc. Early life sections give readers buy in so that can understand where a notable person came from. I don't particularly care what schools someone went to but Wikipedia readers apparently do. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I think the following tells the story: WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I don't like one sentence leads, especially for an online encyclopedia. There should be a brief mention in the lead for each section in the main body of the article. Also, I recently went through a very trying ordeal because I changed the lead of a BLP to read, British-born. I was called a racist and a bigot. Go figure. Atsme ☯ talk 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment purely looking at the version linked above and nothing else here (including preceding comments) I would recommend losing the lost court battle and associated information. Actually that's the only part, everything else seemed relevant to the biography. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comnent. Thank you for your input. I have reworked the court battle information as Sportfan5000 suggested; please comment if it still does not fit with the article. The lead is something that should be addressed, and unless somebody else gets to it first I'll hopefully have that written as well. Feedback is always welcome. Thanks again. Vuzor (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC) "

"Consensus can change" is not an excuse. It has not. Your second edit to that page today, meanwhile, was a bulk removal of that content. You did not even participate in that discussion after these comments were made nor did you respond to my last comment on that RfC. Reverting all of it without any discussion goes against consensus and goes against the collaborative processes supported by this community. Vuzor (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote a portion of my last comment here? [176] Vuzor (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not intentionally. It was likely due to an edit conflict. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi has been reported here as a result of the current edit warring conflict: [177].

• Here's a suggestion - how about the two of you just shut up for a bit if you want someone to actually spend some time looking at this? The longer you go on arguing between yourselves here, the more it's turning into a TLDR wall of text that fewer and fewer people are likely to even bother reading. (And before anyone asks, I don't do this kind of stuff any more so I will not be looking into it or offering any opinions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• I just closed the AN3 report with no violation. It was easy, since the board is for reporting 3RR (or 1RR) violations, and per your own admission there were only 2 reverts. For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors).

Boing! said Zebedee was correct, you need to stop sniping at each other. This boils down to a content dispute and should be handled as such. This should be hashed out on the discussion page of the article if possible. There was an RfC, and while I see there was no formal closure (the template expired and was removed by a bot) the comments should definitely be taken into account when determining a consensus. If you can't come to a decision calmly between the two of you, you should take this to WP:DRN. I can't say, however, that any solid consensus was ever hashed out on the talk page of the article; a few editors did provide input but there was nothing actually agreed to. So I can't say that either of you is violating consensus with your actions. But you need to stop attacking each other over this. -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to sew this up, Atama. Right away after this report was filed I knew the reporting editor was likely to go overboard and inundate the report with examples, old beefs, and walls of text. My initial response was intended to be my only response. That said, the more Vuzor put up that was exaggeration and over-dramatization with things uncomplimentary to him conveniently left out, the more I realized I would be forced to put up some kind of response. This is due to having seen many noticeboard complaints and issues go horribly bad for the accused when administrators didn't look deep enough into what was being claimed to verify it's validity.

I have no issue working with Vuzor if he actually tries to work with me. But, typically, his problem at the articles he works on is about not truly listening to others who have ideas or vision for articles that differ from his own. He seems to truly hate having his lengthy and over-written, promotional prose copy edited, changed completely, or removed. He seems to get emotionally tied to his pet articles - and every article he edits becomes a pet article. Looking at his edit history, you can see that he almost fixates on types of articles or a particular article and its associated articles. Everything becomes a battle with him. He makes editing a chore rather than a cooperative effort. There's a reason why no one comments on his RfCs and noticeboard reports. I'll leave it to you to conclude why. As far as the 3RR report he filed, his reverts were obviously WP:IDLI and out of anger. Rather than just reverting content the previous RfC was about, he reverted everything I had copy edited in one sweep. Not once, but twice. The fact remains that what he reverted back was edit warring behavior, in spite of the decision made at the 3RR noticeboard. Further, he wants me punished and he wants me out of his way, precisely why he immediately asked for a topic ban at the top of this report.

I want to work with him, but he makes it nearly impossible with his rigid interpretation of policy and guidelines in addition to his pettifogging, wikilawyering, and his refusal to understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool and fan site for his favorite bands and musicians. Not to mention his inability to allow editors he sees as flawed to change anything he has written. Based on how he escalated each complaint about me over the last few days and keeps lists of perceived wrongs handy, I just don't see him changing or starting to work cooperatively with me at these articles anytime soon. Because he takes removal of content or changes to content he's added personally, things will not change until he stops being emotionally connected to his edits. Until that changes, nothing in Vuzor's editing, cooperative editing, and reverting habits will improve. Even so, I will continue to try to work with him. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Rigid interpretation of guidelines and policy? In fact, it's been the exact opposite. I've been willing to work with you on many occasions; as User:Spanglej noted, you have focused far too much on parts of the MOS you deem non-negotiable (see: [178]): "I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi... I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)"

Even here you lightly criticized Atama for saying something you disagreed with: "That's not how I read the noticeboard notification policy nor policy on canvassing, but I'll take your word for it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)"). You have cast aside any apparent desire for compromise or collaboration. Your entire spiel here is an attack on me rather than a proposed solution -- also, you have just done a bulk reversion of the Simon Collins article again, which counts now as three reverts within the past seventeen hours (see: [179], [180], [181]). This is the article you were reported for on the Edit Warring noticeboard earlier today. In fact, more content has been deleted now in bulk than in the original reversion seventeen hours ago. You have actually gutted the entire article at this point; your comment on the talk page insists we negotiate, but it appears we both have opposite stances on this issue. Shall we bring up another RfC or will you complain about it? At this point, there are becoming fewer and fewer solutions because of your unwillingness to reason with other editors.

My proposal to you is that additions be accepted initially unless the edit is clear vandalism. All of the content you have disputed has been deemed fine by others. If you feel so strongly that the content there does not belong or that it is undeniably out of place, call an RfC for its removal. If the content is not adequate enough to remain, hypothetically other editors will agree with your opinion and remove that content. Clearly, most of the content you have disputed has been deemed worthy of being kept in the articles, so unless you feel others will agree with you, it would not be worth removing. This method is founded on compromise, acceptance, fairness, and prompts editors to ask "is this really unacceptable to have on the page" before removing everything that was added. I have proposed this to you before; you have shot it down. Reconsider, as this might be the best solution we have. Preventing every addition and starting edit wars every time is absurd. The content you have disputed has, in every case, been deemed worth keeping by others. It has become a ridiculous process to continually dispute this content with you even after approval of it on RfCs. As of now, you are still edit warring over content that other users have agreed is fine to keep. If you feel the content needs to be removed, then consensus must be reached to remove it. Vuzor (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not edit warring, I'm attempting to compromise by starting a discussion on the talk page and putting back in the good edits I made on the article. Further, it was never two reversions from me to begin with, just one. The latest is only the second, and not for the sake of edit warring, but to restore the good edits I made that you reverted completely without consideration for the article. And, no, there was no "additional material" "erased" from the page as you just claimed at the 3RR noticeboard. Nothing is being sorted out at this noticeboard as you also claimed at 3RR. Other than officially closing this out, it's over with, too, just like at 3RR. A discussion has been started on the article's talk page. Please put on your big boy pants, comment at the article talk page, work toward a solution, and drop the stick, Vuzor. Your battleground mentality is totally fucking annoying and counterproductive. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama and I counted two reversions before the one last hour: "For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors)... -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Your initial bulk removal of content I added a few days ago is a reversion, especially considering comments on the RfC supported keeping it there. Your most recent reversion (see: [182] at 20:13, 2 May 2014‎) is the third reversion in a span of seventeen hours, occurring only five hours after the Edit Warring report was closed. I don't have a battleground mentality; I have proposed a solution and am waiting for a response to it. Reverting the article again while we are discussing there here is an instance of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Also, until we have decided on a resolution or an administrator has decided so, this discussion is not over. Unless you are expressing that you are simply unwilling to negotiate, this should be resolved. Otherwise, this time-wasting dispute over every addition will very likely never end. Vuzor (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what Atama said. He said you came to 3RR with a claim of two reverts and two reverts doesn't equal the three required for the 3RR noticeboard. And there was NEVER a consensus at the article for that particular block of content. ONE editor said to keep it, two others said not to keep it, and no acutal consensus was sought nor agreed upon. Obviously I'm not willing to negotiate since I started a discussion at the article talk page. This time wasting dispute is all on you. You have wasted time and bandwidth here and at 3RR. Stop it and go to the article talk page like Atama suggested. I will no longer discuss this with you here, only at the article talk page like adults and cooperative editors should. As I've said to you previously: grow the fuck up. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotation above begs to differ from your claim that "that is not what Atama said." Atama very clearly stated that your first wholesale deletion of material is considered a reversion. In regards to the content, two editors said to keep material, one spoke about the lead (which I suppose was a general comment on the article and not on the content disclosed in the RfC). Winkelvi, the discussion you have just opened on the talk page ties in with the fact you reverted the content again before doing so. In addition, this discussion on this page is more than just about that particular content but about your conduct and a solution to working together successfully moving forward. You do not provide answers when asked about appropriate content, you do not consider proposed solutions, and you seem very much unwilling to cooperate, negotiate and collaborate. It appears you want absolute authority to veto any additions to these pages. The reason this is on AN/I is because this dispute has been happening over the past year and has not stopped. Every addition is deleted immediately, and once in a while you'll begin to remove material in bulk from pages that had been there for a while. It very much can be considered vandalism. I have proposed a solution to make this easier for all parties going forward. If you can not consider it, we will be running out of options. Vuzor (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is correct. As it stands now, Winklevi is at 3 reverts total, the initial series of edits (these edits) from Winklevi were a revert because they undid (at least partially) these edits by Vuzor that preceded them. Both of you, just stop please. Reverting isn't needed, there is edit history that you can rely on if you want to refer to past versions of the article just use diffs, you don't need to revert article space to the old version). For example, this edit was totally unnecessary, and perpetuated the edit war. One more revert from either side on that article and I'm going to institute an indefinite full protection to force you to come to an agreement (and I will of course lock it onto the wrong version of the article. This is not how we work on articles. -- Atama頭 22:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand how two reversions = three reversions when the first change was an honest edit, but that's neither here nor there. I trust Atama's judgement and assessment and won't challenge it. I agree that Vuzor's wholesale reversion was totally unnecessary, I also agree that it was the reversion that fueled the flame into a bonfire. I have NO issues with trying to work out things at the article, exactly why I started a discussion that Vuzor has yet to participate in. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Unusual IPV6 rapid-fire IP switching/editing activity on Reno television stations

• KTVN
• KRNV-DT
• KOLO-TV
• KRXI-TV
• KAME-TV

This series of articles involving television station articles for the Reno, Nevada area has had content culled from them without explanation by a series of IPV6 addresses which seems unusually adept at jumping on another IPV6 address within moments of their last edit, doing it several times in the last few days on these articles. This makes asking why they removed content useless as they've jumped around before a talk page notice can flash up (though they have time to blank Cluebot notices several times before jumping off). I don't think I've seen this much rapid-fire jumping of IP's before in all my time here. I've put the five pages up on RFP, and I really want to know what's the cause of this rapid-fire IP resetting so we know how to deal with it in the future. Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

An IPV4, 108.233.160.134 (talk · contribs) just removed content on KRNV-DT, so that might help a little. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The IPV6 chain now has reported me and Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) on AIV for our justified reversions of the vandalism. Some action needs to be taken before further damage to these pages takes place, including some kind of rangeblock. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that the addresses editing KTVN share only the first four chunks of characters, and the last four quartets are seemingly completely random: it looks to me as if you'd have to block every single IP beginning with 2602:306:CE9A:860. If I understand rightly (confirmation or correction by Jasper Deng would be helpful), this rangeblock would affect 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses (eighteen quintillion), so I daresay that's not an option. Semiprotection is the only possible route. Nyttend (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The 18 quintillion might seem a lot, but as I wrote in the IPv6 rangeblock guide on MediaWiki.org, counting addresses is not a good way to assess collateral damage with IPv6. In this case, this is almost certainly one user (/64 on AT&T) and definitely rangeblockable if you find the editing disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection and reversion of the AIV report, Nyttend. The editing on each of the pages has been rapid-fire and even during the AIV report there were 3-4 jumps of addresses and I've never seen that before (I've dealt with proxy-jumpers and basic mobile-IP jumpers before, but not this kind of complexity). If a rangeblock can't be done, hopefully the semi-protect will bore them off after awhile. Nate • (chatter) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, /64 rangeblocks in IPv6 are to increasingly become run-of-the-mill and for this ISP are always possible without much collateral. If I saw this as an admin, I would've instead made the rangeblock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because you understand the principle, which I can't understand. Thanks for the help! If you can give me the range, I'll happily block it; just provide me with the block link, which is Special:Block/Nyttend with my username replaced by the range. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Mainly for future reference, Special:Block/2602:306:CE9A:860::/64. --Jasper Deng (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; block implemented. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you Jasper and Nyytend for untangling this along with the IPV6 advice; I'm satisfied and ask for a close on this.Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb 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.

---

There's more drama going on at Suzannah Lipscomb. User:MdeBohun, who, redacted has reverted/removed sourced biographical details 1234 times today. She has been accusing User:TheRedPenOfDoom of having an agenda redacted. I have no idea who TheRedPenOfDoom is (other than a long-time editor), but it appears MdeBohun absolutely does have a conflict of interest here and has been warnedabout it previously. Woodroar (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we creating WP:DRAMA about about something completely unimportant? Is dedicating a book to her husband really noteworthy enough for inclusion? People dedicate books to family members all the time, I can't think of many other articles where dedications, especially run of the mill ones, are mentioned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The dedication is indeed trivia. It was added by an IP [183]. But it is Red Pen who is insisting on keeping this. It looks like a toxic situation of "tit for tat" reversions and claims has escalated. Aggressive deleting/readding, with no discussion at all on the talk page appears to be the problem. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If we take the remove trivial information from the article approach the article becomes even thinner. It is clear from the editors comments [184] they are removing it that there reasons other then just general improvement of the article. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"If we take the remove trivial information from the article approach the article becomes even thinner." What an astounding argument! Should we add all the people listed in the book's acknowledgements then? If we want the aricle to be more substantial, add material on the contents of the books, or views of reviewers.
Editors often have personal or ideological agendas. The question for the community is whether the edit itself is justified irrespective of any agenda. This "fact" was added by an IP. Its removal is entirely justified on grounds of Undue Weight. I certainly don't think relatives or subjects of articles should have a right to remove any well sourced information they don't want to be public, but in this case it is trivial, and likely also added in the first place by an editor with an agenda. This should be discussed on the talk page. This has developed from a "tit for tat" over adding the date of birth, which was aggressively removed. As far as I can see there is no controversy about her date of birth. Overwhelmingly dates of birth are uncited in biographical articles. I can't see why it was removed without grounds for dispute. of course MdeBohun has been deleting stuff willy-nilly for not discernible reason (why should the subject's middle names have to be kept secret?) This is just the kind of aggressive deleting/readding content without looking at the context that just pisses off good faith editors and produces a toxic atmosphere on articles. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

For a bit of (recent) background, see my comments here where I insist that Lw1982 was mistakenly identified as a sockpuppet of TekkenJinKazama, but suggested that they may be a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or have some other connection to MdeBohun (perhaps knowing her outside of Wikipedia).

In addition, I noted that MdeBohun made an attempted outing attempt in a recent edit summary, which I revdeleted (I don't think any more than that is needed since it was only done in the edit summary) and will be leaving her a warning on her talk page not to do so again. -- Atama頭 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This will be a big mess for WP:OVERSIGHT to deal with. :( -- Atama頭 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I reading that summary correct, is she implying a relationship or is it just the awkward wording? Because then we do have a COI issue on both sides. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just clarified it with the user via email. It was the awkward wording. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed it. It is trivia, and we are supposed to be nice to subjects that way. It was also OR because the citation given was the book's introduction. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• So I did what I could to remove the WP:OUTING attempts. I contacted Oversight in case they needed to take action as well. I won't get into what I redacted (that would defeat the purpose) but they were attempts to give real-life identities to editors who have not disclosed that themselves on Wikipedia. The only thing I didn't do was revdelete ANI itself, because I'd have to revdelete so many revisions it would be a crazy mess. I wish there was a better general understanding of our outing policy. :( -- Atama頭 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have considered that before bringing this here and repeating accusations from all sides. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a common mistake with these kinds of incidents, I volunteer at WP:COIN frequently (I have for years) and it's especially common there. The difference is that COIN won't get 100 edits in an hour so it's easier to deal with. -- Atama頭 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

as a "book dedication" it is trivial. as a marker of an important life event, it verifies an important life event that is most clearly NOT trivia. that the subject now wishes they had made other choices in their nontrivial life events is not something that Wikipedia articles cater to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That this primary sourced trivia is a marker of any notable life event is amusing, laughable, it's worthless primary cited trivia and I wonder why any experienced Wikia user like the User:TheRedPenOfDoom is edit warring to include it in the article - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you are almost alone in your assertion that marriage is trivial. The people who are editwarring to remove it certainly dont consider it trivial. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So what is your intention TRPoD? Are you just trying to establish that she is or was married to someone named Drake? If so, that sounds like the usual biographical information we'd have in one of our articles. But there should be a better way to do that than just mentioning a book dedication. That just seems like a really weird way to go about things. -- Atama頭 22:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to the motivations here. That certainly would speed things up. There must be something that bothers TRPoD about the removal of this trivial paragraph, so it would be helpful if they could just tell us what it is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, without having to out anyone I can easily establish that MdeBohun has a self-declared COI. See this edit summary where she "made changes at the request of the subject". I'll repeat that nobody other than MdeBohun should suggest or even speculate on any real-life identity for MdeBohun. -- Atama頭 22:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that relevant item to all parties is the marriage - a standard biographical item which is considered by the vast majority of people to be a non trivia item - about which certain parties are for some reason dead set on whitewashing from the article. Yes the phrasing is rather unusual for an entry but given the highly contentious nature, that particular phrasing appears to be the one upon which there is no actual doubt or any possibility of SYN given the sources that have been presented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, trivial it is, and not worth noting--why would it be? Just because it is true? Might as well go through the acknowledgments of each and every book mentioned in Wikipedia. In a biography on the subject it is trivial unless, of course, secondary sources have made anything of it, which isn't the case here. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, it is not the "dedication" as a "dedication" that is at issue. What is at issue is that the dedication is the author talking about the non trivial major life event that we do mention in all biographies - her husband/marriage.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is the author saying something nice about her husband (and it may well be a true statement, who knows). We do not mention "her" or anyone else's husband/marriage in all biographies, since it's simply not always relevant to the reader. Again, if this is relevant, then it should be relevant in every single case. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I find this dilemma baffling. The fact that she was married is basic information that can be included. But to use a separate section devoted to a book dedication to bring up this fact is so unusual, I don't think I've seen it before. Sure, marriages are mentioned as are children but book dedications? I don't think you will come across many in all of Wikipedia. Why the stubborn insistence on including this information, written in this exact way, in this article which is probably rarely even viewed? Is this worth fighting over? And if, yes, why? Why Lipscomb and not the thousands of other authors? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point the "stubborn insistence" to include is because Wikipedia article content needs to be based on what sources say and not what swarms of SPAs want to whitewash from an article based on what they claim is the wish of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you feel this strongly that all book dedications should be noted on an author's page? And, for every person, living or not, all marriages need to be mentioned on their Wikipedia article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

we can discuss dedications and facetiousness all you want but I dont think that will be productive.

and yes, I think that when we have reliable sources about marriage, that should be included in articles and it should absolutely NOT be removed as part of campaigns to re-write history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The issue won't go away because the arguments for inclusion are policy based (albeit weak) and the arguments against, are not. As I said at DR/N, if Ms. Lipscombe now wishes she had not married the man, or dedicated a book to him, she needs to avail herself of the services of a time traveller, not Wikipedia. I can suggest one, but he's only done it once before and her safety is not guaranteed. Guy (Help!) 01:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Guy, that's a red herring. More truthful is to say that it is possible to decide on including it because it is verified, but that actually including it is an editorial decision. Don't say that this is one-sided, as if the removers had "an agenda"--your comment about some marriage is the first time I hear about this, and it can actually suggest a motivation for those wanting to include it, but I won't speculate any further. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the removers unquestionably does have an agenda (the one who filed at DR/N). I think I made it clear there that I think this is a trivium. However, there is no way we would omit to mention that the marriage ever took place if it's sourced, because that would be a failure of NPOV. I have not even looked at that, only at the filing party at DR/N. Guy (Help!)

I'll go have a look at that--but my point is really that there need be no agenda one way or another for the removal to make sense. I have none, and Orange Mike's argument below, that just doesn't cut any wood for me, as the Dutch might say. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not, birth, majority, marriage and death are the four events which have the most profound legal significance for a person. I am all for removing trivia, but being married is not a trivium, though a book dedication might be. That said, if we don't have better sources for the marriage then I'd question whether this person has any significant biographical coverage outside Wikipedia, and I am strongly opposed to teasing biographies out of dust jacket blurb and press releases. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact of a marriage is a totally life-changing event, one we should never omit from an article without a policy-based reason. The only argument I am seeing against its inclusion is that somebody claiming to be close to the subject says she wants it out, which is both trivial and unsourced. Sure, I'd rather have more sources of information than the dedication; but it's pretty darned certain that such a dedication would not have appeared if the marriage had not existed. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole aurgument "marriage is really important and should be noted" is b&llshit. This is about a non notable book dedication that people want to include to push their own twisted agenda. Let it go. --Malerooster (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your competence is in question if you think it is about a book dedication. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

But Mike, then our text should read, "According to a dedication in this here book, she is married to someone named x". That strikes me as silly. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This source (the dedication) does not sound independent of the subject. Where are the secondary sources establishing notability of the info in question? It's a BLP, we're supposed to be very strict about info once it becomes contentious, though on principle I generally would rather delete the whole article instead of letting the subject get control of the details. Ms. Lipscomb's notability appears sort of marginal. AfD wouldn't agree but in a saner world, we don't need the article. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

the "notability " of marriage has been established by thousands of years of culture. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:39, 3 May 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.

68.228.153.247

68.228.153.247 doesn't seem to understand the admonishments that have been given regularly over a number of months regarding the submission of questionable television production codes--and I'm pretty sure this isn't the only IP they've used to do so. User continues to fabricate production numbers for various cartoon series. I suspect they believe production codes should match the season number, episode number and cart number, when in fact, studios can use a variety of numbering/lettering conventions to identify a project, because it is an INTERNAL coding system, used for billing and production purposes, and that it may not match the expected airing order, what with networks routinely re-scheduling episodes per their whims. The fact that Season 1, Episode 3, cart B would not by default be designated 103b is escaping this user's comprehension. Season 1, Episode 3, cart B could be designated any number of ways, from "103b" to "335" to "BBX411105" to "Chipmunk" or whatever the case may be. There has been a very liberal reporting of official "production codes" in children's television for quite some time. Virtually none of these codes are sourced. In this edit the user tried to split the difference and assign arbitrarily an A and B cart to episode production numbers that were sourced. This is a patent fabrication, since individual carts can have entirely different production codes from the released episode numberings, that may not be released in any way to the public, because as I've said, it's an INTERNAL coding system. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. That is definitely a long term problem with plenty of prior warnings given. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous POV edits

An anonymous user with two IPs so far continues to revert the "notable people" list of Eureka, California. The most recent diff is shown on Eureka, California: Difference between revisions as are the previous edits from April 26 to the present. The anonymous editor apparently misunderstands the "notable people" lists and thinks it's only for where someone was born. As seen all over the project, the "notable people" are not restricted to "born in." I would appreciate some help with this, Grant was involved with the earliest days of Eureka at Fort Humboldt prior to quitting his US Army commission before the U.S. Civil War; it's not like he just occupied a desk for a couple weeks and went home. Many local histories contain information about this period of time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this is exciting. NOT. First of all, one may well discuss whether being stationed somewhere is enough to warrant a "from"--I suppose it depends on the having been stationed there possibly having been of any kind of relevance to life and career and world history. By the same token I have removed the relevant category from Ulysses S. Grant just now--it is unverified, even unmentioned in the article (given this edit summary, you should agree), and there is no argument or even mention of "Eureka" anywhere on the talk page or in the archives. Second, this is ANI. You should not think that we (ahem, any of the admins) are likely to take any kind of action over a content matter without vandalism or BLP issues involved until there is any discussion on the talk page at all. I see you left a note for the IP editor (we're all "anonymous", even if you edit under your real name), but that does not suffice. You want to argue for inclusion, then argue. But not here. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So sorry to bother you. I do agree with you that people should not be on pages where there is no mention of them having been, however the relevant material on Grant's service in Eureka and why that was such a seminal moment in his career is on his page: Promoted to captain in the summer of 1853, Grant was one of only fifty on active duty, and assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, on the northwest California coast. Without explanation, he shortly afterwards resigned from the army on July 31, 1854. The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a strict disciplinarian, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off duty while seated at the pay officer's table. In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to sign a drafted resignation letter. Grant resigned; the War Department stated on his record, "Nothing stands against his good name." Rumors, however, persisted in the regular army of Grant's intemperance. (According to biographer McFeely, historians overwhelmingly agree that his intemperance at the time was a fact, though there are no eyewitness reports extant.) Years later, Grant said, "the vice of intemperance had not a little to do with my decision to resign." Grant's father, again believing his son's only potential for success would be in the military, tried to get the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to rescind the resignation, to no avail. Thus I think he should be included on notables list of Eureka, California. It is listed in the article that he served at Fort Humboldt, and Fort Humboldt is entirely within the city limits of Eureka.

I thought this was the right place to deal with multiple anonymous IPs making edits and edit warring, apparently I was in error. Please next time however, spread a bit more WikiLove to people asking for assistance? I really have had very few problems on Wiki over the years I've been here, and have little experience with asking for help, so perhaps I am in the wrong place, but would you be so kind as to tell me where "not here" is? It is the same amount of time and effort to be kind and caring, giving link to proper place and helping to solve problems. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• If what you cite is correct and verified, and it includes the name "Eureka", you might have a good case but it's still one to be taken up on the talk page. I'm sorry if you don't feel very loved, but ANI is for disruption and admin intervention, and this is just not one of those cases: being dragged here is quite something, and doing it if it's not justified isn't very wikiloving either. Good luck making your case, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have put this information on the talk page. I would point out perhaps the header at the top of this page is needing to be fixed as it reads "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I asked for the help of an experienced editor, I don't see why you're saying "dragged here..." when reading the instructions it seems as though one asks for help with edit warring and reversion edits here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius and off-wiki at Wikipediocracy

During April I had unpleasant exchanges with User:Coat of Many Colours at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius after I defended User:Nathan121212, whose edit they reverted with the edit summary "WP:NPOV. Plainly partisan." in bad faith in my opinion (see also article talk page from Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius#User:Nathan121212). Coat of Many Colours implied I have a COI (I do not), and accused me of being "entirely" responsible for "let[ting] standards slip" and "shambolic juvenilia" in the Progress of the trial section I have barely edited ([185] [186]). Please note I am not saying the Trial of Oscar Pistorius article is perfect. I would never have started that particular section per WP:NOTNEWS and I can only recall making one minor edit to it other than tagging. As one of many volunteer editors, I am not "entirely" responsible for the section, the article or any other Wikipedia editor's edits as they seem to think.

By their own admission Coat of Many Colours also edits as an IP, in one instance apparently referring to themselves as a third party, where they tell me "I frankly think you lack the expertise to function here" and suggest I may be "involved with Pistorius' fan base" (which I am not, and never have been).

off-wiki stuff

I decided to let it go and interact with them as little as possible as I have better things to do, until I found an explicit personal attack by Coat of Many Colours targeted at me off-wiki at Wikipediocracy date 14 April 2014 (I have saved a screenshot in case they edit it or remove it.): "[Coat of Many Colours wrote:] The resident editor HelenOnLine, who doesn't post adoring fanmail on Oscar's website or caretake his BLP with anne like devotion as fas as I know, didn't think this a partisan edit. EricBarbour wrote: HelenOnLine, where have I seen that name before?..... [Coat of Many Colours wrote:] That would be sister Elissa viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2882&p=59621&hilit=HelenOnline#p59621. She means well, but she's a tad tempermental / hell just mental, forget the temper. Brilliant lawyer though, you have to give her that (not that she's ever likely to contribute any of that to Wikipeda again)." I am not a lawyer incidentally and the off-wiki post by someone named Elissa they refer to contains false information about me (as far as I can tell the hidden note re non-free images in question on Reeva Steenkamp was originally added by User:Hydrox not me).

I really wanted to let this go, but I don't think that is an option any more. If I don't speak up, they will just keep doing it and spoil Wikipedia for everyone else. HelenOnline 10:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the references to the off-wiki stuff because it's not actionable here. A site for griefers, griefing. Who knew? Stick to issues actually on Wikipedia please. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have included it per Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks, especially as the user has denied that they are making personal attacks: "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." HelenOnline 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Only on-wiki attacks are actionable. If you must include the off-wiki stuff, separate it and collapse it. What goes on in the various anti-Wikipedia talking shops is really not that relevant or significant. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I have offended Helen. I thought we had a good relation as evidence this interaction.

To set the scene here, Helen came to the Oscar Pistorius article on 15 February 2014, the day after Oscar Pistorius shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp and did valuable service correcting POV edits, including numerous edits to the effect either that Pistorius had admitting murdering Steenkamp or that he shouldn't be assumed guilty of shooting her until proved otherwise. In the end she became one of the article's most prolific contributors. As for me I've been editing since November and interesting myself in the Pistorius trial article since its inception. Mostly I contribute to the visual arts.

My experience of Wikipedia has been mixed. Contributing to the visual arts means you are likely to run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's copyright overseers. Indeed I did and eventually I complained I felt harassed by one especially punctilious overseer. It happened that an ANI was opened at Commons about this particular editor and I contributed. One of the editor's supporters then referred to me in a post at Wikipedioacracy, a fact I discovered accidentally on a Google search regarding the editor in question. I signed in on mu Wikipedia account name and defended myself. Thus my own introduction to Wikipedioacracy. There are other Wikipedia editors, including administrators and bureaucrats, who contribute at Wikipedioacracy. It maintains the same standards as does Wikipedia regarding personal attacks. I'm not aware that I've been accused of making one there.

I recused myself from the Oscar Pistorius trial article after I could not get agreement about the merits of a particular edit and retired my account. I had made it clear on my Talk page for some time I intended to close the account once I had finished editing at the Pisorius trial. Equally I had made it clear there that I wasn't prepared to enter into edit wars and the like.

On reflection I returned, noticing that the edit I complain of has still not been balanced. I contacted all the editors involved, including Helen setting out my position and a proposal. Helen said that she wasn't prepared to get involved any further, the other editors (including the originating editor) supported me, basically telling me to go ahead.

I don't know what the trigger really is for Helen's ANI here. I propose to continue as I suggested I shall(i.e. edit tomorrow evening along the lines suggested). If that turns out to be unacceptable then I shall retire from editing at the article. I don't have any problem with that.

The "personal attack" (in Wikipedia) is an old charge. I didn't see it had any real validity at the time. Of course I've been uiters versigtig since not to give offence. I'm aware that I'm something of a bully when it comes to the written word (total wimp real life syndrome, familiar thing) and I do tread carefully because of it. Wikipediocracy however is a good laugh and I do charge in joyously there on all fives brandishing my mojo thing right left and centre up anything that comes my way.

As for "admitting" IP editing (is that a crime?) I do edit IP quite often by mistake. I share my computer and can't maintain an auto login and I sometimes simply forget to log in and don't notice the alert. I do wish we could have a beep as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The trigger is finding insults and untruths posted about me off-wiki, adding insult to injury. Editing as an IP is allowed, but pretending to be someone else defending your position and making personal attacks while doing so is not (see "Editing logged out to mislead" in WP:SOCK). HelenOnline 15:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of my IP edits at the article (there may be others because I'm with a ISP that regularly shifts its users' IP adresses about, but as far as I know that's all of them). Regarding the second IP contribution you refer to, that wasn't from me. You have to understand, Helen, that Wikipedioacracy is not the only forum outside Wikipedia interested in its goings on and in particular what goes on with its coverage of the Pistorius trial, imagine. This is an issue which I am trying to put right. If you really think I'm wrong-headed about it then go ahead deal with it, but not like this. I've been as pleasant as pie to you on Wikipedia. I'm sorry I've pissed you off outside it, but that's life eh? You can always open an account and defend yourself there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The admins can decide if it was you or not, it seems pretty plain to me. If you think you have been "as pleasant as pie" to me here, you need a serious wake-up call. HelenOnline 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I take you up on your claim that you never made WP:NOTNEWS edits at the article? It's true that you made only the one minor edit in the "Progress" section (to an edit of mine which, as it happens, was balancing POV for Pisorius pointing out that the majority of his text messages to Steenkamp were described as normal). But you were, were you not, responsible for initiating all of this about the "stumps" and provoking those IP edits you say want admins to decide their origins:

The opening statement of prosecutor Gerrie Nel noted that the murder case against Pistorius is based largely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.[39] Contrary to statements made in the bail hearing, the prosecution's case in the trial is that Pistorius was not wearing his prosthetic legs at the time of the shooting,[42][43] or when he broke the toilet door down afterwards.[44] Prosecution expert witness Christian Mangena, a police ballistics analyst, testified "the shooter was most likely not wearing prosthetic legs".[45][46][47] Prosecution expert witness Johannes Vermeulen, a police forensic analyst, testified Pistorius was not wearing his prosthetic legs when he broke the toilet door down with a cricket bat after the shooting.[48] Pistorius pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him, including murder and three gun-related charges.[49][50]

I'm not a lawyer either (to clarify) but I should think those IP responses pretty much on the money. In all seriousness I think it at least possible that the prosecution may want to clarify that when the trial resumes.

I hope I've been constructive here. I don't feel I can have more to contribute. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made no such claim, please don't put words into my mouth or try to change the subject. I am also not going to discuss content issues here as it is not the place for it. HelenOnline 18:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect, Helen, when you said above "I would never have started that particular section per WP:NOTNEWS and I can only recall making one minor edit to it other than tagging", that can only be construed as saying you don't approve of WP:NOTNEWS edits, and yet you made one, several in fact, but not in the "Progress" section. Your position on that "Progress" section is much as the same as mine, that we shouldn't encourage ongoing edits, but whereas you think that fundamentally a section like that is biased, I believe it can and should be managed and serve a purpose as a record of ongoing media (both MSM and social) and I made it clear from the outset that was my interest.

I do hope you're going to let me go now, Helen. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fluther

Could an admin please unprotect this page? I came across the subject at afc and the company was acquired by Twitter. I am going to move the afc article to the Fluther page. Whether it stays independent or gets redirected/ merged to Twitter I leave up to the experts, but there is no reason why the subject's page should be protected since we have an article on the parent company. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Could you at least link the AFC article? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fluther. Looks it meets our notability requirements now. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Good enough for me. Unprotected, @Candleabracadabra:. Not a big deal, but for future reference, WP:RFPP is the preferred place for protect/unprotect requests. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, but on closer inspection it seems that the company itself was not acquired. Just its development team. So if someone wants to nominate for deletion or whatever I haven't looked into the sourcing.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• We will see. When deciding to unprotect, all I can do is apply the "snowball's chance in hell test", ie: a reasonable chance it might survive. It passes that, barely. I did check enough sources before unprotecting, and we should be before moving stuff out of AFC. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was definitely a lot of coverage of the Twitter purchase. There was some coverage before that and after that. Whether it's enough? I don't know. But I would say it would warrant a deletion discussion so I don't see anything gained by leaving it in permanent AfC purgatory. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Odd editing is going on at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (and List of Wharton School alumni, but that seems to have slowed down.) If you look at the revision history, all kinds of brand new accounts are making one or two edits and then leaving. Some of the edits are fine, some are heavy WP:BOOSTERISM. There could be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or a class project or something because of the editing behavior. The edits have become disruptive and I recommend semi-protecting the article and more eyes monitoring it. I brought this issue here just because I thought it so odd. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please create an SPI for that. A quick checkuser showed something around 100 new accounts from the same IP; I'm wondering if it's a class project or something, but it certainly needs deeper analysis (and I don't have the time this morning.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bahooka claimed on Talk:List of Wharton School alumni that "Wharton claims they are the largest at 92,000 alumni, the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University claims they have the most business school alumni at almost 100,000 living alumni. We do not have a secondary source on either claim. I recommend we just put the number of alumni rather stating it is the largest business school alumni network in the world until a third-party citation is found." Then Bahooka removed Wharton's claim. However a powerful new account like me easily restored it on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wharton_School_of_the_University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=606883997&oldid=606880082). As can be seen from above, hundreds of accounts exists, and hundreds of accounts are coming in the future. As claimed by a Checkuser above, Checkusers are helpless themselves, and in no way can fight off hundreds of new and existing accounts. So, best is to just leave Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and its related articles. As anything removed from these articles WILL GET RESTORED.--Jeepsralph (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

there is some ambiguity regarding this claim. Retracted information accordingly-- so best for you guys is to f off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepsralph (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeepsralph indef'ed per personal attacks and then bad-faith editing at Wharton School Publishing (un-fixing obvious template syntax-error, removing deadlink tag on a dead link). Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania ‎semi'ed. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

...and now that user was kind enough to confirm his socking and intent not to follow WP behavior policies. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked a big pile of 'em. There are probably still more. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't know how the history function works. And after this, TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make you want to hire a Wharton grad, does it? EEng (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki

Hotwiki seems to have a problem with other editors posting useful information on the articles on his Watchlist. Take X-Men: Days of Future Past for example. I added information on Hugh Jackman's guest appearance on WWE Raw as part of a cross-promotion between the film and WWE. Despite using verifiable references, my edits were reverted by Hotwiki, who claimed that they did not meet notability standards. Apparently, he is the only one who has a problem with the edits, as no other editor has made any similar complaint. Hotwiki had already violated the 3RR with his frivolous claims of non-compliance to MOS:Film#Marketing, and he continues to do so.

In addition, he posted this rebuttal in response to my warning:

I do have a problem with your input, they are unnecessary, uninformation and doesn't meet the standards of Manual of Style for films, so please stop editing. Thank you. And for the record, I don't not own any of the articles here, I just to revert things that aren't needed and if you review my work on that article, you would know my contributions really helped that article. What did you do before that was so good?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

- Areaseven (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Areaseven's input doesn't meet the standard of MOS:FILM#Marketing. I really don't think we should mention every single TV appearance in promoting the film. Hugh Jackman's WWE promotion is hardly notable. The critical commentary he gave was from Twitter users. Areaseven wouldn't even bring up "Twitter reaction" as his critical commentary if I didn't tell him about this Manual of Style for films. And I don't think "Twitter reaction" is enough for the said material to be kept.

And just because no other user complained about your edit, it doesn't mean your input cannot be removed.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And can you please list down the moments where I removed an useful information on the articles on my watchlist? Do you even know my watchlist? I only removed things that are not needed, unsourced material, speculation and crystal ball stuff, and I could show you those edits of mine. Please don't accuse users without an evidence--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HotWiki's posting is borderline of a personal attack and not assuming good faith of the user's actual edits. Telling someone to "stop editing" and asking "what did you do before that was so good" is not very welcoming to other editors. Instead of being hasty with an editor and calling their edits "unnecessary", HotWiki should've explained why their edits were reverted, and ways they could improve their editing, instead. And that would also help in avoiding the episode edit-war that was potentially taking place on the page. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack is not the issue here. Since when do we include "fan reactions" in articles especially "Twitter fan reaction"? This is Wikipedia may I remind you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your actions were called into play, and your words are formed from your actions, which have included several personal attacks, especially with this incident. And not once did I mention "Twitter fan reaction", as I do agree. But once again, I remind you: it's the tone and manner of how you handle yourself in your words and/or actions that you may need to be looked at. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And who was accused of having a problem with other editors posting useful information on the articles on my Watchlist? Me. Bottom-line, I wouldn't having an argument with Areaseven if he only listened to me. Like I said, his contribution doesn't meet the standards of MOS:FILM#Marketing. First, his contribution was lacking of critical commentary, which I mentioned when I removed his edit, then he backed it up with fan reaction from Twitter. Lets not make this about my attitude, because thats not the issue in this first place. The issue here is Areaseven's contribution of posting questionable marketing info and putting fan reaction as the critical commentary for the questionable marketing info.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your attitude here on Wikipedia is the issue here. You simply could not agree with another editor's helpful edit, and you took it upon yourself to take this issue personally. - Areaseven (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

To mirror Areaseven, the issue here is you and your attitude HotWiki, as this Incident report was opened up about you, and you once again prove my point by saying "f he only listened to me", because you're assuming he needs to listen to you. Areaseven's edits were in good faith, though his execution was not quite right. But you also strongly handled this situation wrong, as you've notably done in the past with other editors, which I've witnessed through your talk page discussions and your edit summaries. And either way, it also doesn't excuse you from entering into a borderline edit war with the user. And looking at your edit history, you never once took the discussion to Areaseven's talk page, which Wikipedia recommends. And it also recommends and suggests that using an edit summary as a discussion board is not valid for having a "discussion" with another user. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

More IBAN violations by Ihardlythinkso

Discussion over

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. Again Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) violates both the letter and the spirit of the IBAN by continually referencing the "narcissist" comment. [187]. Note also his behaviour on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Shogi, where his posts made clear references to me and my actions. This proposal for a new WikiProject had lain dormant for months; why did he suddenly feel compelled to post a whole lot of inflammatory stuff immediately after I posted there? This wasn't picked up in the recently closed thread but it should have been. Does this IBAN actually have any teeth or is he just going to be "warned" again so that he can continue with his unacceptable behaviour? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Perhaps the appropriate venue for these kinds of concerns is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GeneralNarcissism (AN/GN)? That might apply to about half the threads here. Anyway. Carry on. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support 24 hour block. The thread I started yesterday [188] was closed with a second warning "Ihardlythinkso is reminded to NOT talk about MaxBrowne at all." and "Atama, or another involved administrator, will not hesitate to block in the future." Atama specifically warned against bringing up the issue dealing with the word "narcissist". Ihardlythinkso is not heeding that warning at all, here he continues complaining about the "narcissist" personal attack, and while it is a direct complaint over The Bushranger, it is also a clear indirect jab at MaxBrowne, which is just as prohibited as a direct jab. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Note: there is also a thread here on the same topic. —Neotarf (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC) It appears to me, much to my disappointment, that the reservations I expressed when endorsing the restriction are simply justified. I honestly do not see why the both of you should not be sanctioned, if not for anything else, but as an enforced wikibreak to get your priorities straight and start figuring out a more effective way to dedicate your time in Wikipedia. Yes, sure, this editor is clearly acting foolishly by not following the very sensible advice he has been given to take a voluntary wikibreak, and instead, making the comment cited in this ANI which consists of grievances about old issues. Lack of clue is also an issue which is affecting his behaviour (which would probably warrant normal dispute resolution before running back here). However, by the same token, I also don't understand why this editor's comments are being followed or scrutinised in this similar-to-obsessive fashion with blocks being sought at every turn. And even ignoring that, if the user to whom the comment was made is in no way affected by it, do you not see how counterproductive it is to bring it back here so that it receives 10 times the amount of attention it would have otherwise received? It's exactly why I would seriously consider whether or not the Community restriction should be vacated now. It would mean you have to air your grievances in an arbcom case rather than here at every turn; ultimately one of you might be a lot better off than the other (or not) after you've exhausted each other, but at least it would mean the community could address other (more serious) issues more promptly rather than losing time checking the repeated relatively-petty complaints of this squabble. (I use the word petty in this way because if the violation in the earlier thread were as serious as suggested, the clear consensus of the uninvolved eyes would've been to block rather than issue another warning - an action which I happened to also endorse as it so happens, which frankly, says enough). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC) @MaxBrowne: I find it disturbing that you are monitoring IHTS's user talk page. If you are going to bring up the "spirit" of the interaction ban, you should take care to follow the spirit yourself, in that you should be avoiding each other. I do understand that you are not literally violating the ban by bringing your complaint here (reporting the other party for a violation of the ban in an appropriate venue, such as this board, is explicitly allowed) but if you are going to accuse the other party of violating the spirit of the ban while not violating the letter, you should expect to be held to the same standards. I checked to make sure that there was nothing added to the IBAN aside from the standard provisions (because some interaction bans prohibit editors from following each other to pages) but there is no such restriction here. Also, I know that IHTS is heavily-involved in chess matters, so it's not unreasonable to think that he was there only because of his involvement in chess-related matters on the project. And he refrained from commenting until a third party also commented, and restricted his interactions on that page to the other person. In that situation I don't see any violation. But I did say that if IHTS didn't drop the stick and kept bringing up the "classic narcissist" comment he'd be blocked. I made that very unambiguous. And yet he did so again. I'm instituting a 24 hour block, because if I don't do so there may as well not even be an IBAN if nobody is enforcing it. IHTS should know exactly where the line is, because it was pointed out very clearly, and to repeat the behavior looks like an attempt to explore the boundaries of the ban. This block helps to set those boundaries. It's my hope that IHTS just moves on and stops bringing up this petty point, it's a waste of everyone's time. I'll also point out that multiple editors (including myself) have already answered his question (is the statement a personal attack) to the affirmative, so to bring it up again seems to be willful disruption. That being said, I'm going to try to engage personally with IHTS on his user talk page, because I think there are valid concerns from him in the midst of this, and I don't want to give the impression that he's being ignored. -- Atama頭 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC) IBAN's are transitive now? So not only is IHTS not allowed to discuss the OP, but any editor (e.g. Bushranger) they've also got cross threaded with? NE Ent 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) No. That is not at all what's happening. It was explained very clearly in the ANI thread previously that bringing up the comment was an indirect criticism of MaxBrowne, since the personal attack had originated from them. IHTS can complain about Bushranger, and I made sure to express to IHTS that I agree that the suggestion that the comment wasn't a personal attack was incorrect, and that suggestions otherwise were unfair. But to continue to mention the comment specifically is a violation. There was no ambiguity, it was made clear, and there were multiple people supporting that suggestion. IHTS continued to bring it up regardless. So if someone is told "do this and you will be blocked per the ban", and they do it, they are willfully violating the ban. Also, due to the unambiguity from the closure of the last thread, it is only reasonable to assume that IHTS was deliberately egging on administrators to enforce the ban to test whether or not it was actually going to be enforced. It is critical that it is enforced, otherwise the interaction ban may as well not exist. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. -- Atama頭 16:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC) It's not a matter of clarity, it's a matter of being wrong. In essence, what Atama is saying is that they individually imposed a topic ban on an editor, which is not supported by WP:CBAN. I'm not seeing any notice on IHTS's talk page nor any logging of it on WP:Editing restrictions. Arguably, IHTS had moved on from obsessing about MB to obsessing about Bushranger -- see the discussion on his (IHTS) talk and also mine. To me, by stalking IHTS's talk page MB violated the IBAN as much or more than IHTS. (Since they've both been long active on chess related articles, it's unreasonable to think one is stalking the other if both end up on the same page.) Clearly, IHTS has been on the path of self wiki destruction, and I'd hoped they'd change course before they got there, and hearing about Bushranger's incorrect "spade is a spade" endorsement of the PA over and over again is tiresome. But a bogus 24 hour block on fallacious reasoning is unlikely to improve things. If there was a block to made, it should be on the grounds of WP:TE, not a flimsy synthetic topic ban out of an iban. Which means that a "reaching out followup," no matter how well intentioned isn't terribly likely to be successful. NE Ent 17:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Atama's reasoning is sound, and I agree fully with it, as well as his caution to MaxBrowne of not looking for things IHTS might engage in. Any reference by IHTS to MaxBrowne's conduct, directly or indirectly, regardless of whether he is named or not, is a violation of the IBAN. If IHTS had written " I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that MaxBrowne's "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA"." nobody would disagree that it would be a blatant violation of the IBAN, since it is a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne's comment and conduct. What IHTS actually did write, " I would like your assessment of admin Bushrangers proclamation that "classic narcissist" name-call is "not a PA"., amounts to the same thing, both in spirit and meaning. It is just as much a complaint and mention of MaxBrowne, and mentioning MaxBrowne implicitly rather than explicitly is immaterial. Both are in violation of the IBAN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Well first of all, "cautioning" MB while rewarding him by blocking the opponent isn't a very effective deterrent. We have a choice between assuming IHTS was continuing his old pissing contest with MB, or continuing his current one with BR. WP:AGF (at much as it can be applied here) suggests we go with the latter. Reviewing the thread, I'll note the closing summary made no mention of the alleged topic ban, so claiming there was community support for it is suspect. NE Ent 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) To your three points. (1) The reason MB "gets off" with a caution, while IHTS receives a block, is that IHTS has already received two cautions, MB hasn't received any before this. (2) Whether IHTS primarily was pursuing Bushranger or MaxBrowne is not really relevant. Obviously, he was going after Bushranger, but in so doing he made a reference to MaxBrowne's comment from several weeks ago even when he was explicitly warned not to. (3) There is no topic ban, but there is an interaction ban that was violated by continually making reference to the "narcissist" comment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Point (1), for the record, being the reason I blocked him and inadvertantly started off this fracas in the first place: regardless of whether or not the "narcissist" comment was or wasn't a PA, the worst MB would have gotten was a "don't do that" warning - while IHTS had already been warned and chose to carry on. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC) For the record I'm not "following" his talk page, and I didn't even participate in the previous discussion at ANI. It was the shogi discussion that led me to check his recent editing history and raise the issue. The Shogi discussion clearly suggests that he has been following my edits and is in fact hounding me. Why hasn't anyone else picked up on this? Also I absolutely hate the implication that in seeking to have the IBAN enforced I am somehow doing the wrong thing, and that I am somehow equally guilty. The whole situation is very upsetting to me and I hate being tarred with the same brush. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) The brush has two ends. I suggest MaxBrowne let go of theirs. 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC) For once and for all NE Ent (talk · contribs), stop blaming me for IHTS's behaviour. I find it personally insulting. Since the IBAN I've minded my own business, made good edits to to article space and made no mention of him directly or indirectly, even when a previous ANI was opened. He's the one who reacted to and made direct reference to my edits on the Shogi discussion; he's the one who refuses to drop the WP:STICK. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) You've accused him of hounding because of the Shogi discussion -- there are currently six threads on this talk page with shogi is the title, starting with User_talk:Ihardlythinkso#shogi_variants:_piece_values from last August. NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Wait, is BR still saying the narcissist thing wasn't a personal attack??? NE Ent 03:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC) No, BR did not say that in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Nor did The Bushranger say the converse (hence the question). NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Support block - BMK (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support Block -Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Support block of IHTS. I should state here that I'm perfectly non-neutral w/r/t IHTS or I'd just impose it myself, but his behavior here seems to continue his previous pattern of behaving in problematic and uncivil ways while exercising a good deal of WP:IDHT. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Can't disagree with the IDHT part, but here's the question -- is a 24 hour block -- especially for the wrong reason likely to improve things? NE Ent 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Support block -- Can see how he keeps bragging, even when he is blocked. OccultZone (Talk) 11:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Answering Ent (and adding it on here because, well, nowhere else is appropriate): After looking things over and consdering it, my choice of words in the original issue was admittedly quite poor. Accusing somebody of narcissism is a personal attack, however, given the situation, actions, and overall mess that was going on at the time, it was not an actionable "NPA" - it was provoked, and the editor had not previously been warned, which I should have been clearer about at the time. For my lack of clarity, I apologise, and I also apologise for allowing IHTS' goading to keep me from assessing it further and clarifying what I meant sooner. (And, as I said before, it changes nothing about the actions that would have taken place.) For that, I administer a self-trouting, and resolve to speak clearer and triple-check my words before clicking 'submit' when the heat:light ratio is increasing. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) What dishonest manipulation, User:The Bushranger. Here I clearly asked you to redact your PA: So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Here was your reply: Let's be very clear here: there will be no redaction, as there was no personal attack to be reinforced. Everybody has told you it isn't a personal attack. The fact that you have shopped your complaint to (at least) four admins and gotten "two threats, one insult, and one nothing" should indicate that the problem is not the 'personal attack' you are claiming. There comes a point where your refusal to listen to what everyone is telling you and continuing to insist they're all wrong and you're right becomes an indication that you are not capable of being part of a collegial and constructive editing environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Also, you say he PA was "provoked". Where's the provoking diff? There were no exchanges between users any time recent prior to the AN. And I handled myself professionally at that ANI up the point of the PA. You blame the victim by saying I provoked that PA. Where's any recent diff prior to the PA that you say provoked it?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I criticized you for that action (on IHTS's talk page explicitly, and I at least implied it by agreeing that it was a PA) but I appreciate your statement here and think it was appropriate. Whether or not IHTS is as accepting, who knows. This whole issue has exhausted my patience, honestly, and I'm generally a pretty patient person. I'm going to let other administrators deal with any further enforcement and/or evaluation of the IBAN, for whichever party. I've got plenty of other pans on the stove right now. -- Atama頭 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Whether or not IHTS is as accepting, who knows. Just so you don't have to spend forever "not knowing", Atama, there has been no redaction or apology whatsoever for this: If someone behaves in a manner that is indistinguishable from a certain sort of behavior - in this case, "classic narcissist/Diva behavior" - then pointing this fact out is calling a spade a spade. Which was, in that case, the fact: your behavior is, again speaking absolutely frankly, exactly that. [...] - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 May 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.

An account made simply to vandalize and use profanity

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.

---

Over the last few days, someone has emerged with an account to vandalize golf-related pages. And now today, when the person attached to that particular profile was politely asked not to vandalize, they responded by saying "Why don't u f*ck off u mother f*cker" (I deleted the vowel just now, and replaced it with an asterisk.). Here is the person's talk page where they were warned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobynash ... And here is their short but obvious history of vandalism on that profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobynash. Please see if there is something you can do, if you have time. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the usual place for vandalism reports, but I've given him a 5 day rest. Please don't forget that you're required to advise the other editor when you report them to an admin noticeboard the panda ₯’ 00:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm going to guess that was a "u". Am I right? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, I was just about to notify him as soon as I was finished with this. Thanks again. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 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.

Lieutenant of Melkor

Firth thing off - I am INVOLVED in this situation and have no doub that will be Lieutenant of Melkor (talk · contribs)'s first line of defence. Nevertheless, LoM appears to have been abusing Twinkle to edit war, plenty of recent diffs at Gan River (Jiangxi). They have also used Twinkle on what appear to be non-vandal edits aka standard content disputes, a few diffs include this and this. They have also used Twinkle to remove talk page posts (yes, mine, boo-hoo) - not nearly as severe as the edit-warring but shows that their problem of properly using Twinkle continues. Unless it is determined I am over-reacting, I would ask that the tool is removed. GiantSnowman 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wider editor issues - see this where they appear to admit to harassing Eldumpo (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that this is only a small fraction of edits using that tool and (yes, I know, this may be WP:NOTOTHERS) others use Twinkle to revert good-faith edits all the time without being whined at (I acknowledge many of the edits are good-faith, but I don't like leaving links to anything in edit summaries); you are also aware anyone has every right to remove posts, except for block notices while blocked, from their own talk page per WP:TPG. Overreaction, much? I would like to point out the Texas-sharpshooter approach GiantSnowman has undertaken; (s)he has overlooked the fact that I duly restored the references Eldumpo added, and that within the same message at User talk:Eldumpo I offered a conciliatory gesture and a promise at the same time. Also, my invitations to discuss the matter have been ignored, rebuffed and met with disdain by GiantSnowman. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, "Lieutenant", because of one little language template thingy you make this wholesale revert of content addition? That's ridiculous--besides Twinkle abuse. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Drmies, did I not restore the references and clean up after myself? That's ridiculous--besides not being a neutral party. Until more reasonable eyes come, I'm signing off for the next few dozen hours. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You can be as arrogant as you want to be, but that revert was ridiculous--that you fixed it a day later after some more back-and-forthing doesn't change the matter. Also, the grammar of the last sentence you copied from me doesn't make any sense since "not being a neutral party" cannot take the same "that"; clearly "ridiculous" refers to a situation or an event, and those aren't parties. And this, you should realize, is not a party either. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also, "Annatar" was Sauron, not Melkor, so your signature doesn't make much sense. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• There's not much difference between clicking on the undo button and clicking one of the Rollback buttons Twinkle provides. When they've used Twinkle, they seems to be pretty good about using edit summaries. As for removing edits from their talk page, I can't see any conflict with WP:BLANKING. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removing talk page posts using Twinkle is a minor issue, a distraction If you will. How about abusing Twinle to edit-war at Gan River (Jiangxi)? GiantSnowman 17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding this comment from LoM about me 'escalating' the situation - well I've tried to discuss the matter, and indeed raised the mis-use of Twinkle before but my attempts at discussion were removed not once but twice - both times mis-using Twinkle, of course - hence why I felt the need to bring it to wider attention. GiantSnowman 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Point of Order The only way to remove twinkle is to block the user. I expressed strong objections to having the "Do not Service" twinkle blocklist being removed, but here we are and now the two options are a Topic Ban on twinkle (with a subsequent block if they violate the topic ban) or a block to prevent them from using Wikipedia at all. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Then I suggest a topic ban, for now. They do not have the correct attitude or clue to be trusted with it. GiantSnowman 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hasteur. We can't block Twinkle, from what I know that's just not something we're technically equipped to do (at least not anymore). This isn't like revoking rollback rights because of a misuse of that tool. I guess we could impose a "Twinkle topic ban" if it's deemed necessary, but I wish it was easier than that.

Using Twinkle's rollback isn't the same as hitting "undo" though. For one, WP:TWINKLEABUSE suggests against rolling back good-faith edits without a proper edit summary. For another, clicking the "undo" button takes a couple of extra steps and forces the editor to slow down a bit and review what they're doing, so it's a bit less prone to mistakes. So I wouldn't dismiss the misuse of Twinkle as a non-issue, it can definitely be an issue and there can be good reasons to restrict its use. (The fact that we don't have efficient methods to restrict it is a problem.) -- Atama頭 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, the whole point of not allowing rollback (and, by extension, certain functions of Twinkle) to be used on non-vandal edits is because they don't allow one to leave an edit summary explaining why the edits are being reverted, and so imply that the reverted edits are vandalism when they're actually not. But here, at least on Gan River (Jiangxi) and in the other diffs that GiantSnowman provides, they actually have left meaningful edit summaries via Twinkle, so I don't think the Twinkle use is actually a problem. (Actually, if we're being technical here, the one at fault for such is you, GS, as you appeared to have used a tool to revert that didn't leave a meaningful edit summary.) Wanting people to take the few extra steps that it takes to go the "undo" route is nice and all, but it ain't policy. As you say, Atama, the thing says: Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Well, all these edits had appropriate edit summaries, so I'm not seeing the misuse. Edit warring is still edit warring, of course, but in this case, I don't think there is any misuse of Twinkle aspect to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @GiantSnowman: Hold on, you brought up Gan River (Jiangxi). How are Melkor's edits (with edit summaries) worse than your straight-up reverts? [189], [190] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I used rollback to revert non-constructive edits - the removal of valid references - before opening a dialogue with the editor. LoM's misleading edit summary where he claimed to be restoring language information when actually he removed a number of valid references, or his simple "unexplained" (even though I had already posted on his talk page) are nowhere near sufficient. GiantSnowman 17:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, like I quoted, Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Whether or not they can be considered "constructive", Lieutenant of Melkor's edits were certainly in good faith, so yeah, it would appear that, if anyone is abusing rollback and/or Twinkle here, it's you. Don't you think it's a tad hypocritical of you to complain about Lieutenant of Melkor's use of Twinkle in an edit war when you used rollback in the very same edit war? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, like I said, I did not - and still do not - view his edits as "good-faith", which is what I meant by "non-constructive." How can the removal of valid references for no reason really be considered anything other than vandalism? Yes, it would have been better for me to have clicked 'undo' rather than 'rollback', but my edits were to restore valid content removed without explanation (allowed by rollback!), whereas LoM's edits were not only far greater in number but also far more disruptive. Nice attempt to BOOMERANG, however. GiantSnowman 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• GS, I'd take it easy here if I were you. WK is not out to get you and he has a valid point. It's clear that abuse of Twinkle is a bit more difficult to pin down than rollback abuse, and really, that shouldn't be the real issue here--I pointed at a diff, above, that I find much more troubling than the abuse (alleged or not, whatever) of Twinkle. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's a fair cop: I didn't look into this as much as I should have, though I still think you (GS) were not reacting to this as ideally as you could have. LoM actually did have a reason for reverting: the first edit that Eldumpo made in that series removed the foreign-language information from the lede, and this is what LoM wanted to restore, judging from his edit summary. But Twinkle being Twinkle, LoM actually reverted all of Eldumpo's edits, not just the first in the series. If this wasn't intentional, that was careless of LoM to revert without looking at what he was reverting; if it was intentional (which does seem likely), then it was disruptive of him to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, okay, fair enough, I see where you're coming from, though your rollback-reverting is still something that I don't think is right here. Those reverts of yours were not improved by the lack of an edit summary; on the off-chance that LoM was only trying to revert one of the edits and accidentally reverted them all, a no-comment revert would not have helped them figure out what's going on. But whatever, I'll trout myself for that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re:my editing - yes, I acknowledge that and have said that. Shall we trout one another?
• Re:LoM's editing - either way, at last we get further acknowledgement that his editing was poor. His response and attitude, however, have been even more concerning. He told me not to edit those kind of articles because my degree was unrelated to the subject, which is one of the most baffling things I have come across in my 8+ years here. GiantSnowman 18:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The trout goes to the Snowman. The most important post of an ANI thread is the first one, and when it contains totally incorrect / lame assertions, e.g. implying there is something incorrect about using Twinkle to remove a post from one's own talk page, or using Twinkle with an edit summary for non vandalism edits, it's not reasonable to expect responders to fill in the gaps. And edit warring on the page without using Talk:Gan River (Jiangxi)?? Come on, this stuff should be wiki-101. NE Ent 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been distracted by the talk page issues, and completely ignored the large related to this editor's use of Twinkle. I'd advise you to read WK's post directly above yours, and Drmies' earlier on. 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I ignored their use of Twinkle, because they're not breaking any policy by using it. Please provide a diff of them using Twinkle without an appropriate edit summary. NE Ent 19:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said - LoM's misleading edit summary where he claimed to be restoring language information when actually he removed a number of valid references, or his simple "unexplained" (even though I had already posted on his talk page) are nowhere near sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Prevarication in edit summaries is clearly disruptive editing, but it has nothing to do with Twinkle. NE Ent 19:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then... GiantSnowman 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I wanted an explanation in the edit summary itself, and nothing less. None of my edits qualify for appropriate usage of unexplained rollback, and neither are yours. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally messaged User:GiantSnowman regarding concerns I had with some of Melkor's edits, in particular the removal of references, especially when it results in no cites left at the article. I think the edits made at Gan River are really poor, and were only restored after intervention, and a number of uncivil talk posts to Snowman. I am not going out of my way to remove Chinese language from intros but am adding sources to articles often without any sources, and thus any cites should be reflecting the text before it. I wouldn't have minded them being re-added as long as the cites remained. I believe there's a big difference between removing references and removing such uncited language info at the start of articles. Melkor's talk page post to me is also unhelpful. Eldumpo (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Eldumpo: Chinese characters in the lead are not "uncited language info", they are a key element in China related articles per the Chinese style guide.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: - and how do I know that someone has entered the characters for 'Gan River' and not 'Sewage Dump' etc.? I don't care how much of a "key element" is it, it needs to be verified! GiantSnowman 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @GiantSnowman: There is no need to bite me, I was trying to bring some balance to this discussion. Are you suggesting that every China related article needs to have a reference verifying that a translation of its non-Roman characters is valid? Apart from the inherent difficulty in doing that, such a policy would also need to apply to Russian, Hindi, Mongolian, Thai and a number of other ISO character sets.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur, since when did translations fall under WP:V? That's ridiculous. If you're unsure if a translation is accurate or not, get someone who knows the language to check. -- Atama頭 16:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Directly quoting from the introduction from WP:V - "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Italics are my own. GiantSnowman 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

But see WP:BLUE. If we required citations that "x foreign language word means y", we'd first of all, have to go on thousands of articles and cite menial things, and most of the cites would be poor non RS dictionary cites. KonveyorBelt 18:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, BLPs aside, there is no requirement that a citation be provided in the article to pass WP:V - the verifiable reference must only exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Again quoting directly from WP:V - "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That applies here, seeing as this material is the source of contention. GiantSnowman 09:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richard Nosehard

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.

---

Will someone, i.e. a mod or admin, block my old account, please? I forgot the password to it, there's no email address associated with it, and I don't use it anymore. However, as far as I know, the password is not secure. I'd appreciate it if it was blocked already. JacketBoy2000 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, admins can't block at request, but you can ask for a courtesy vanishing. See Wikipedia:DISAPPEAR for more info. TheMesquito^buzz 20:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem... If there is no email address, and don't know the password for it, how can anyone possibly confirm the account is yours? What I would do to confirm is ask someone to either log onto the old account, or send an email to the old account's email address and wait for a reply. But it sounds like neither would work in your case. So even if admins would block an account on request, that can't happen because there's too much of a risk that we'd be blocking an account for no reason because a random person claimed to be the old owner of that account. -- Atama頭 21:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid no admin will block here, because of the confirmation problem. However, let it be said, since the opposite has been stated, that admins can and do block on request. There's a whole category of admins willing to consider placing self-requested blocks, of which I'm a member. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Ah, I did not know that, I striked the text stating otherwise. Sorry! TheMesquito^buzz 01:12, 3 May 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.

IP editor at Old Great Bulgaria

The same case as a few days ago. Blocked for 72h, upon expiry, again the IP user changes dates etc in the Old Great Bulgaria article. Given that the same IP address has been making the same disruptive edits across several editions of the same article (Bulgarian, German, French, Spanish, Italian etc) and does not seem to learn from his blocks, could we please permablock the account and editprotect the article in question for a while? Constantine ✍ 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Abusive reverting

For the last two months, I've been making the same weekly addition to the 2014 NASCAR Sprint Cup article, and I've never had a problem with anyone doing anything on there. But in the last week, a certain person, for no reason, started reverting my edit on there. Their excuse is that there hasn't been a report added. As I said, in 2 months, I've never had a problem on there - if a report was needed, someone would have complained a long time ago. That user can add a report if they want, but if not, they need to stop. They can't have it both ways. ... .... Here is what it's SUPPOSED to currently look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=606970882&oldid=606945252 .. And here is what that person keeps making it look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=next&oldid=606970882 ... ... As I said, in two months I've never had a problem with this until now, and for no reason, just some user with apparently nothing better to do. It needs to stop. I don't like having my time wasted. They can't have it both ways.

Here is their profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:United_States_Man , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 4 May 2014

• I simply took off blank headings that made no sense because they did not contain summaries. I even tried to explain, but you just can't get through to some people. United States Man (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, can't get through to some people, people such as the one above me here. There was never a problem in 2 months on there until they came along, all of the sudden, out of nowhere, without any intention to want to help, just to be a disruption. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Is this permalink what you mean by "tried to explain"? It is not satisfactory to revert a good-faith addition (1 + 2 + 3) with no edit summary beyond "Reverted 1 edit...". The proper procedure would be to post a short explanation at the article talk and refer to it in an edit summary. A "did not appear to be constructive" warning is not an explanation whether or not a few words are posted after it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

COI editing by IP - Ministry of Sound, James Palumbo and related articles

I have noticed a significant number of edits by 62.244.189.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Ministry of Sound, James Palumbo, Baron Palumbo of Southwark, and other articles from Category:Ministry of Sound. The IP resolves to MSHK Ltd, which is one of the Ministry of Sound companies, of which Palumbo is founder and chairman. I have tagged the MoS and James Palumbo articles with a COI template, and noted why on their talk pages. I have also left a COI user template on the IP's talk page (and will shortly also provide them with a link to this thread). I have done some clean-up on the Palumbo article. Please could admins take a look at the situation to see if anything else needs to be done? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and threats by User:Jazbar

There's an ongoing edit conflict at Party of Slovenian People, involving myself and User:Jazbar. I added controversial, but appropriately sourced info about a marginal Slovenian political party which was removed several times without explanation by an anon [191] [192]. After my final restoration, it was removed again by Jazbar (again without an explanation [193]). A few minutes later, he posted what I consider a threat at User:Jazbar/sandbox (permalink), in translation "Gentlemen criminals, I know who you are. Greetings to Jernej from NM", where "Jernej" is my first name as stated on my slwiki user page. Personally, I assume that the non-logged-in IP belongs to the same user, but even without that, I think that he violated several Wikipedia rules. Can somebody please look at it? I won't engage in edit warring, so please also return the content if you think it's appropriate. Thank you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jazbar continued with edit warring [194] after the content was restored by another user. In his new message here, he continues with personal attacks and tries to assert article ownership. I don't know why my complaint has been ignored, but his behavior sets a bad example. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi page for awhile

Would someone be so kind as to semi protect this here ANI for a bit? (Yes I know WP:RFPP exists -- iar and all that..) NE Ent 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks. NE Ent 18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"In the News" - parochial exception, or the norm?

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.

---

OK, now I've found the right place, it's complaining time.

My initial gripe was with the (imho) indefensible decision not to post the Gerry Adams news on the front page (if the idea is that people are supposed to make reasoned, informed and sensible arguments). But we are well beyond taking issue with how that crazy decision came about, into 'wtf'? territory regarding the integrity of the people involved in general.

Having complained about that "no consensus" closure on Wikipedia talk:In the news, it was shut down immediately by Rambling Man, at the request of 331dot. I complained about that at Talk:Main Page, but it was swiftly removed by Rambling Man and 331dot, on the technicality that it was the wrong venue. When I found what I beleive is the right venue, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), what do you know, it was shut down by Doktorbuk and 331dot.

What, I hear you ask, connects Rambling Man and 331dot and Doktorbuk? I'll tell you. They all apparently comment a lot on the In the News page. Now, considering that the main thrust of my original complaint was about the lack of quality, reason or indeed basic intelligence of the various comments there (including having specically mentioned a comment made by Doktorbuk about the LA clippers), it's beyond the pale that I now seem to be being harassed by the very people I'm criticising? Surely even Wikipedia has something to say about such naked self-interest?

Indeed, in irony of ironies, 331dot is now shamefacedly accusing me of harassing him! My crime? I said I would tell people in the outside world about the things that happen on Wikipedia, using hiM as the poster boy example of the sort of dysfunctional things that happen here

Other miscellaneous complaints:

• 331dot's attempted closure of a section criticising his own behavour - something he has now elevated into a "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion"
• Rambling Man and 331dot's failure to tell me where the correct venue was to take this issue further (for obvious reasons)
• Rambling Man's failure to tell me about this place, even after I asked him directly where I could complain about him (for obvious reasons)
• Rambling Man's quite ridiculous threats to block me for telling 331dot about the poster boy thing
• The various accusations/insinations by people (including someone claiming to be a teacher no less) that I am a 'smelly sock', from people who apparently don't have enough evidence to do anything more about that, except call me names, perhaps in an attempt to make me cry, or some other lame reason - it all seems designed to make me go away, so they don't have to respond to my legitimate complains about how the rejetion of the Adams story came about

So, I guess my question is, is this evident circling of the wagons and refusal to answer even the most basic criticism of their process, unique to 'In the News', or is it just normal - is this just how criticism is dealt with by everybody at Wikipedia? Or is someone here, someone who has no dog in this fight, going to do the right thing by Wikipedia's reputation, and start taking names? Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's posts, including the above one, speak for themselves. It's not about what was said or what was done, but how they went about it. THey are clearly disappointed with their supported ITN nomination not being posted and have taken to a crusade. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your actions also speak for themselves. Do you really think people are stupid? Do you think they can't see that you're one of the people I've been criticising for the way they commented in that Adams section? Do you think they can't see that you were the person who requested my subsequent complaint at Wikipedia talk:In the news be shut down. And do you think they can't see that it's been you who then has directly shut it down yourself, at the Main Page, and then the Village Pump? You can fool some of the people, some of the time.... Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not shut it down; I restored someone's else's shutting it down. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. I guess that makes you completely innocent then, in your eyes. Wow. I didn't punch him first, your honour! If anyone wanted to know who else was shutting it down as well as you, they only needed to read above - I did name everybody involved at each stage, given that what links you all together are is pretty much the point of this complaint. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought yourself to ANI, Lokie, because if not, I would have. This user has been tendentiously editing, posting long blocks of aggressively worded and angry comments in response to those arguing against his rationale for posting the "Gerry Adams" nomination topic for ITN. The closures of said threads in the various venues in which he brought them to were not because his arguments were going unheard, but because the discussions were getting long-winded, disruptive, and borderlining on personal attacks. Yet he continues to insist that Wikipedia is engaging in a grand whitewashing, to the point where he has accused it of being a "cult". I don't think that his behavior amounts to a long-term block, but he must be reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and this sort of battleground behavior does not foster collaboration. --WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice theory. OK then, if you redraft my original complaint without the bits that are supposedly "long-winded, disruptive, and borderlining on personal attacks", we'll test if it's a good one - we'll see if Rambling Man allows it to be reposted on the page. After all, he seemed confident nobody would be remotely interested in it, so if nobody replies, that will be that, and I will have my answer. I only started this "crusade" as some people are so stupidly calling it, after he shut that original complaint down. But if it helps you to blame me for reacting the way any normal person would to such obviously self-interested censorhip, go ahead. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the forum! As I said, sorry it didn't work out for you, better luck next time, like if Adams gets charged or convicted. Otherwise this is business as usual and doesn't warrant the tens of KB of Tl;dr being issued across multiple Wikipedia pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, Rambling Man 'welcomes the forum'. That's why this is about the 5th time he has tried to deflect attention away from his role with this 'nothing to see here' act. And I don't know why he keeps trying to portray this as merely sour grapes on my part, but as he's done it yet again, I'll just repeat, yet again, that my complaint goes well beyond that, for me (as if he remotely cares). Anyone who wants the full details of why I think that decision should be considered well beyond 'business as usual' (unless it's just to be accepted that 'In the News' is just a forum for people to talk absolute made up crap, as Rambling Man himself has done quite frequently), then they need only read the section at Wikipedia talk:In the news, which he shut down. Anyone who wants to know why I am annoyed at what has happened since then, only needs to read above. He has absolutely no need to keep trying to mislead others about what happened, or deflect attention away from my accounts, unless of course he has some reason to think that would be to his advantage. Like maybe, people not realising that apparently he seems to quite like getting to decide for himself what is and is not newsworthy enough for the front page, whether it is or isn't news in the real world (part of which of couse is the unfettered ability to shut down complaints when they occur), and he doesn't really want to be put to the trouble of actually explaining why he comes out with such utter stupdity as he goes about giving that opinion, like the recent claim that because the news of the arrest has finally dropped down the page after three days, this shows it wasn't news anyway, not for an international site like Wikipedia anyway. I mean really - either he has some kind of brain injury to think that makes any sense to anyone else but him, or he is showing everyone else at Wikipedia such a massive amount of disrespect by thinking they are just so stupid that they are going to just accept such obvious nonsense as fact, and incorporate it into a calculation of 'consensus' (which sadly appears to be the case with Adams). Either way, he's not anything like what you would expect the average Wikipedia insider to be, but that's just my opinion as an outsider. Maybe from inside the asylum, perhaps he's admired for these special abilities. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you're still not quite getting it are you? It's very simple. Many people disagreed with the nomination. A few agreed. There was insufficient consensus to post. End of. Now please stop filling up Wikipedia with your rage. You need to calm down a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to all my previous answers, the contents of which won't change no matter how you try to change the narrative here. The no consensus decision was flawed, you either undertand that's my issue and attempt to give a good counter-argument, or you can just keep on trying this rubbish. Your chouce is clearly the latter. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'll give you my thoughts. Firstly, I'm going to assume good faith that since you're new, you didn't know the most effective way of getting your complaint heard, and therefore I'm going to treat the claims of forum shopping as excusable and understandable. Now, for the actual content in question, the point that appears to have been made repeatedly by numerous people is this - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. We have a very strict biography of living persons policy, and in particular, we treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure The Sun and the Daily Mail can't wait to trip over this story, just like they couldn't wait to scream from the rooftops that Rolf Harris was a kiddie fiddler par excellence .... but just because they do it, doesn't mean we do it as well. As was said in the initial debate, if Adams is charged or convicted, we can revisit the story then. Like the Rambling Man said, people looked at your proposal, suggested it erred too much into violating our enforced BLP policy, and said "sorry, not suitable". It's an old cliche, but I can now strongly advise you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, as you're not going to get the result you want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not have a dog in the fight, but you didn't bring anything like a decent point to this table. It's an old cliche, but why don't you get your head out your ass and actually read the policy you think you're enforcing? As someone had already pointed out in that original discussion, BLPCRIME has absolutely nothing to do with this. Is Adams relatively unknown? No. Has the news of the arrest been ommitted from his Wikipedia biography pending conviction? No. Was there any doubt that he has been arrested in connection with a murder? No. So there we are - that's the entire paragraph of BLPCRIME, and not a single part of it remotely supports the idea that this news shouldn't have been reported on the front page. As for trying to claim that the TV and press coverage this news has got the last three days has been tabloid in nature - what an utterly disgraceful thing to say. It cannot be right that people can get away with telling such blatant lies about what's been happening in the real world, outside of the bubble of unreality you seem to want Wikipedia to exist in. This has been the headline story on the BBC TV news, and in every major reputable newspaper. You and Rambling Man and whoever else might wish it wasn't, but you need to open your eyes. The rest of the world is reporting the facts, only Wikipedia is trying to pretend that readers are so stupid that if they did so, they would interpret the headline 'Adams arrested in connection with a murder', as 'Adams is a murderer'. Anyone opposing this on that basis isn't enforcing any policy that I can see. Unsuprisingly, nobody can prove otherwise either, all they can do is keep screaming with incresing intensity, that it's a 'violation'. Hardly the sign of a convincing argument. Not even really an argument, it's just shouting really. And if innocent until proven guilty really was the reason for all this hysterical screaming about 'violations', then it really beggars belief that you could even think there is any material difference to Wikipedia putting on its front page 'Adams arrested in connection with murder' and 'Adams charged with murder' - in both of those cases, in the eyes of the law, he's still actually innocent. Are you really so clueless not to even realise that? It seems so, given everything else. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One word: WP:CONSENSUS. It's key on this project, and no matter what you say, consensus to include it on the front page failed. No need for additional rants, it's just the way this project works. When it's closed as no consensus, there's no appeal the panda ₯’ 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Read my complaint. Yes, consensus is key - but if you go look, consensus is not about ignoring the fact people have lied about basic facts, misquoted policy, and generally talked nonsense, to come up with a conclusion that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In the time you took to post those two rants, you could have compiled a nomination for Max Clifford, who has been convicted of child abuse, and might have had a better chance of being accepted and put on the front page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance to this issue? Zero? No surprise there then. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By creating a new ITN nomination, you will prove the community that you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and not to waste everyone's time. I think our conversation is over, and the only thing that remains to be seen is which admin's patience will fray sufficiently to hit the block button first. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By answering my criticism of your response, you'd be showing the community that you're actually concerned that you might be totally misapplying policy. By declaring the conversation over, you make it pretty clear what you think of the community. You're clueless about the policy you claim to be enforcing. That was clear from your response, and your subsequent evasion has merely confirmed it. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I'm so disgusted at the blatant and deliberate mis-application of BLPCRIME to this issue, I've raised it on the policy talk page over there. Hopefully someone can stop this nonsense by making it even more clear, although it's pretty damn clear as it right now. People just need to stop lying about it being remotely revevant to issues like this. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A good idea, another venue, possibly different people to hear your arguments. Are you therefore content for this thread to be closed as your discussion has been relocated? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Another shameless attempt to decieve people about what's going on. It's not even surprising any more. The discussions are obviously different in nature and purpose, but you already knew that. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How long until this makes it to Jimbo's talk page? Or better yet, the Wikimedia Foundation?--WaltCip (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Lokie, by going from talk page to talk page, is showing all the characteristics of a troll. We get it, you're disappointed that a hobby horse failed to get chosen for the front page. Stop beating along since deceased equine creature. Move on. doktorb _words^deeds 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting what I am saying. It's simply dishonest. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, if 5 people had been saying it wasn't even in the news (a total lie), and 5 people were saying it should be posted because it was notable, if someone then had the stupiditiy to close that as "no consensus" - you wouldn't then be ignoring the obvious flaws in that judgement, and you certainly wouldn't be shutting down the inevitable subsequent complaints. But yet, you are doing it here. Why? What is there to gain for Wikipedia by rewarding people for lying or misrepresenting policy/reality? Because if you remove the lies and halftruths from the opposition case, you don't have much left to counter the people pointing out the obvious, that this was a notable news event - and Rambling Man/331dot/DoktorB's attempts to prevent that complaint getting an airing are why we are here, no matter how many times Ramlbing Man tries to deceive people into thinking that's not the case at all. Lokie Dokie (talk) 19:49, 2 May 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.

Cardus

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.

---

Greeting administrators. I would like to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardus over the Cardus redirect. I am adding a hatnote to maintain a link the the individual's article. Thanks for any assistance. As far as the group's notability, I'd say it's borderline. So no objections to taking it to AfD. Some of its sub-projects already have articles.. And it does seem to be somewhat influential with various publications, partnership, and notable involved in its activities. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not use {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} like everyone else does :-) the panda ₯’ 23:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I will give that a try. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

... anyway, I moved it  Done the panda ₯’ 23:34, 4 May 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.

Repeated modification of movie dates and blanking within movie-related articles

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.

---

First off, I don't know if I'm in the right place. This person appears to be engaging in broken-record behavior after repeated warnings (below) about editing movie-related articles rather oddly. They won't respond as to why they're doing this, and don't seem to be improving the articles very much.

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

The IP listed above keeps changing the dates for movies and removing large chunks of film-related articles and templates.
The sort of thing like changing "Belle (2013 film), a 2013 film" to "Belle (2013 film), a 2014 film". [195]
While I tried to assume good faith and think perhaps the movies were made one year and released another, it really doesn't all add up. Characteristically, this user will increment the year of a film or movie by one with no explanation. It's sometimes more subtle, such as replacing 2011 with 2012; [196] even though the film's article says in the first sentence "...a 2011 [film]..."

This isn't once or twice, but a couple dozen times or so. The most recent diffs, date-related: [197][198][199][200][201][202]

Similarly, this user blanks out sections of articles without edit summaries or any hint as to why information should be removed. Why blank out a few related paragraphs concerning awards, special viewings, or accolades, as most recently done here? I really don't get it.
Some more I grabbed: [203][204][205][206][207][208][209]

After warning about blanking [210]/error-insertion [211], trying to get across to them in other ways with a relevant welcome message, a warning template and a personalized note on why edit summaries are necessary, they still don't seem to get it. I can't seem to communicate that what they're doing is probably unhelpful to the articles and templates in question. What do I do now?
...Or, to turn this around... are they making sense, but I fail to see the pattern to what they're doing? Perhaps trimming movie articles they find to be off-topic or inexact, perhaps? I can't really call myself a movie fanatic here. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're in the right place. However, clear cut vandalism goes to WP:AIV, but more incremental, subtle, and complex stuff like this I think is best described at ANI. So I think you're not in the wrong place. Tutelary (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked six months for long-term vandalism of movie articles. The edit filter log shows they have blanked sections of articles more than 50 times since early 2014. A 31-hour block in April had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 5 May 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.

Strange "French" spamicles

We've had a couple of nonsense articles in extremely bad French reported at WP:Pages needing translation into English: CONSEIL NE dur travail and Examen bonnes raisons pour Prendre contact avec un conseiller Moyen rendement gà nà ral. The first looked to me like a machine translated copyvio, but I was unable to find a source, so I dropped a note to the editor whose only contribution it was, asking them; the second had English phrases embedded in it and spam-type references, so I have blocked the editor whose only contribution it was, but please keep an eye out for more of these in case more than one IP is involved. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

These are just more spambot accounts doing their thing in French versus English. I believe they are tracking them on meta, but I can't remember the name they are calling this spambot. The spambot has been active for months. Feels like years. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio needs admin intervention.

TL; DR: To resolve a copyvio resulting from an improper merge, please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER. (We can give the deleting admin, @RHaworth: more time to post the reply they are considering. No other admin action needed, IMO.)

Details, applicable rules, etc:

I'm posting here cuz policy shortcut WP:DCV says,

"If a contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted, they may be reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard."

25 days ago, I wrote here:

"... IIRC it's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. To the deleting admin, @RHaworth: please restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too.

Despite the ping and recent activity, the apparent copyvio [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAGEMASTER&action=history persists; no history for RAGEMASTER restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too.}}

Despite multiple pings and recent activity , the copyvio persists.

I wrote the above draft post ~1 day ago.

> 12 hours ago, "Considering my reply," wrote RHaworth at talk. (contribs).

I need to reboot. Posting. --Elvey (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read this complaint twice now and I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to report. Something about a bollixed histmerge, yes, but what does pinging RHaworth have to do with it, what is the copyvio, and why do we need to know that someone was considering a reply 12 hours ago? If you could explain in plan English what the problem is, without quoting old edits from other pages, that would probably help admins help you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

TL; DR: To resolve a copyvio resulting from an improper merge, please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER.

RHaworth bollixed the histmerge by deleting RAGEMASTER. Bollixed how? It's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. So I told the deleting admin, @RHaworth: : Please restore the history and merge properly in future.

What is the copyvio? The unattributed content merged from RAGEMASTER. Please read WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright if you still don't understand. I linked to it in my OP. --Elvey (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RAGEMASTER is a redirect page as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAGEMASTER back in January 2014. Are you talking about the deleted page history? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is why I wrote, "please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER."...--Elvey (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I created the NSA ANT catalog article. I don't recall that any substantial amount of content of the RAGEMASTER article was actually merged into the target article. An admin can check the deleted article to verify this. It also seems that WP:NOATT might apply.- MrX

I think confusion here is understandable. The article was deleted with the rationale that "The content has been merged to NSA ANT catalog", as the request was made as "{{db-g6|rationale=The content has been merged to [[NSA ANT catalog]]}}". If it were true that "the content has been merged", then we would be violating the copyright of the contributors to PAGEMASTERRAGEMASTER. The question is whether the content was actually merged or the information was merged. Since information has no copyright, there's no copyright issue in merging that without attribution. I've compared the article in history and the new article and I don't see any obvious similarity. I think that user: MrX is probably remembering correctly that no substantial content was copied. User:Elvey, do you believe that actual creative content was merged? If I may have overlooked something, we can always restore the history for a check. It's not like it's a BLP vio or anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Go Maggie! I believe that actual creative content was merged. That is why I wrote, "please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER."... So would you please undelete the history of RAGEMASTER, Moonriddengirl? TIA. --Elvey (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PS I don't see how what I wrote could be so confusing to folks familiar with our policies. Is the confusion due to too little clue and patience among admins regarding copyright? Or is my writing far, far less clear than I think it is? I see so many admin copyright mistakes (like the nonsense posts insisting that I violated the copyright on my own work - even after I made it abundantly clear and obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had merely copied my own original comments from one part of the wiki to another) that the evidence is strong for the former . --Elvey (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the history. Whether there's creative content or not, it's clear that what this is not at this point is "uncontroversial", and, again, it's not like it's a BLP or anything. The will of the AFD is still enacted by the merge. I'm afraid I don't have time to look further for creative content - it's been a busy weekend. :/ If there's anything that needs attribution, we should note it in edit summary at the new article. If not, it should be fine. I think part of the confusion here is the mixing of terms - "merge" and "histmerge" are very different things. With a "histmerge", obviously, there's no history left at the former article. :) The two are melded together. This was a garden variety merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I added {{R from merge}} to the redirect & {{merged-to}}) to the redirect talk; this should prevent similar future deletion requests. Rgrds. --64.85.216.78 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the histories of the two articles. MrX's contributions, such as the initial creation and the list's addition, appear unrelated to RAGEMASTER. User:Someone not using his real name's expansion of the RAGEMASTER item (diff, history), this edit in particular, contains a similar clause ("modulating ... red ... RF") to the original version of RAGEMASTER. I generally ask the user directly, but he retired and has not edited since March. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As a reminder to editors like Elvey and others, undeleting the history is actually only part of the solution to any possible copyvio problems. The contribution history of the article where content was copied to should reflect the fact that content was copied. Otherwise the contribution history of the article content was copied from is somewhat useless as no one checking the article where content was copied to is going to know to check it to find the other contributors of CC-BY-SA+GFDL copyrighted content. Unfortunately it does seem to be a problem that people copy stuff inter-enwikipedia without making it clear it's being copied from elsewhere even when what they're copying may be creative enough to be eligible for copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks again, Maggie. Would you/someone please undelete Talk:RAGEMASTER too; that shouldn't have been deleted either. --Elvey (talk) (continued in new subsection below)

Agreed, Nil. I've been merging the missing content in, - and reflect the fact that content was copied - and hadn't even read your post. I'd really like to see RHaworth and the other admins who seem to have been confused about this ACK that page deletion shouldn't occur at all when a merge is performed. --Elvey (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Move warring with metals

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.

---

(Previous section title: Move edit warring the metals )

Trouble in WP:ELEMENTS paradise. Otherwise respected editor Nergaal started moving article page Other metal to Post-transition metal [212]. After initial talk [213] at user talk by me, it was reverted [214] by another editor. Only then at WT:ELEM Nergaal started a discussion (OK in itself), but the moves continued back and forth and into a 3rd title. This is disruptive.
I state that this is counter to earlier discussion outcomes (so should be re-discussed first), and that it is disruptive. For example, the periodic table articles do not correspond any more.

I request: Please restate the prior situation, until discussion at WT:ELEM concludes:

1. Other metal has the content
2. Other metal get anti-move protection as deemed appropriate
3. Nergaal is restricted by words or by bits to stop this warring.

-DePiep (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Notified Nergaal [215] and WT:ELEMENTS [216]. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Formerly-respected Nergaal has chosen the war path: [217] says: "I haven't been blocked for 3RR in many years, but this topic is so idiotic that I have no issue doing it" [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC) (late sign, +30min)

I have put in a request for move protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection until the ANI is closed. TheMesquito^buzz 22:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TheMesquito. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, here's why your requests @ ANI don't end up going the way you want them to:

1. They're barely understandable - the words appear to be English, but the sentences are not;
2. You ask for specific action, when you should never do so;
3. The actions you ask for often belong on other noticeboards;

So, I can guarantee you'll either make some snotty response like you have above, and/or open some similarly non-understandable and poorly-thought-out thread on the talkpage as well the panda ₯’ 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User that was move waring was blocked by admin HJ Mitchell TheMesquito^buzz 22:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re DangerousPanda: guarantee? If you don't understand ANI or a specific post: then stay away. I am not asking for ignorant editors with that bit set to react. I am not asking for a favor from any admin, to please me. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That is dangerously close to Personal attack, calling a editor ignorant. TheMesquito^buzz 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

By DangerousPanda? No not that close. But it is, willfully: deviation; unhelpful; introducing personal opinion; making general admin conclusions. In general, I think this contribution by DangerousPanda is showing the low discussion quality by admins right her on ANI. Did you see it did not contribute anything to the essentials of this thread? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a personal attack - typical for DePiep. Of course, this thread is very educational as to what happens when people can't parse his English the panda ₯’ 22:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I hadn't seen this thread. I was just clearing the backlog at RfPP and it was my opinion that blocking Nergaal would be at least as effective as move-protection. Having seen this thread, and in particular the "war path" diff cited by DePiep, I stand by that decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So why did you block him for two days? Just because you can? — lfdder 23:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

He did [218]. 48h is barely enough to restore the damage, never enough to conclude the discussion. What is your issue, lfdder? -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

48h barely enough to repair the damage? You must be jesting. I want to hear why he's opted to block him for 2 days. — lfdder 00:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

??? What do you really want to ask? (or state) -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that for the purpose of halting the 'move war', a shorter block would've sufficed. I want to hear what the reasoning for blocking him for 2 days is. — lfdder 01:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No response, naturally. God forbid admins are bed accountable for their blocks. — lfdder 11:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I have moved the article back to "Other metal" and move protected. Someone needs to start a RM if they still want it moved. I also noticed that the article was moved (seemingly with consensus) in March 2014, but this was achieved by a cut and paste move. I have repaired this as well. Number 57 22:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reading careful & being careful (it could be me after all). Sorry I got distracted, good you did not follow. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article talk page Talk: Other metal is now a messy redirect, which is confusing. Can an admin take a look? I realize that discussion of the move is at WT:ELEM. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Not an admin, but I have moved the discussion from the Poor Metal talk page to the Other metals talk page and redirected the Poor Metals talk page back to the other metals (Most likely needs to be deleted before a possible page move) talk page and removed the redirect on the other metals talk page TheMesquito^buzz 23:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, @TheMesquito:, you just did a cut & paste move. Now an admin will need to fix it. The talk page history is still located here while the text was copied here. Rgrds. --64.85.214.126 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted until an admin can fix the redirect TheMesquito^buzz 01:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed. Please can everyone stop moving pages via cut & paste. Thanks, Number 57 12:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell DangerousPanda, I asked Nergaal on their talk page if they intend to continue the move war. If their answer is no, please consider unblocking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If he'd made a GAB-compliant unblock that addressed that, I would have unblocked him much earlier. I've been watching his talkpage, and await his replies the panda ₯’ 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This makes it clear for me that there is still a lot of improvement possible in the wikipedia system. Decoupling the laws and rules in the wiki system from the real world of improving the wiki articles and taking decisions in the light of what and why something happened is not implemented jet. You need to study wikilaw to get your things done, I saw good editors leave after such cases.--Stone (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit- and move-warring is still edit- and move-warring, even if you end up being right (which I'm not saying is going to happen in this case) :-) the panda ₯’ 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So when will you be unblocking him? — lfdder 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

When he understands and accepts why he was blocked and gives a good-faith reassurance that it won't happen again, I'd wager. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: then why don't you block him indefinitely? We can't have him running about wreaking havoc first thing tomorrow his block's gonna expire. Cut the crap and unblock him already. — lfdder 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're even more disruptive than usual today, aren't you? If the block expires and he has not learned the lesson, the next will likely be much longer ... there's no valid reason to have indeffed, and without a GAB-compliant unblock request, there no valid reason to unblock. I personally hope he learned from the experience, and won't repeat - that is the second purpose of a block, after all. the panda ₯’ 23:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And who's made you wiki's moral police? Casting aspersions doesn't buy you a way out of the argument. If anything, you're the one who's being disruptive -- by keeping a productive editor blocked to teach them a lesson. Who's even told you he needs any mentoring? (I do things I know are 'wrong' quite often; I know other people do too.) To recap: do show some understanding and shut the fuck up about me being disruptive. — lfdder 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll do well reading WP:BLOCK - maybe you'll understand the purpose (try WP:CIVIL while you're at it). I'm shocked that you'd suggest he needs mentoring now - I know I sure didn't. I'm pretty sure he will have already learned, and I look forward to his return. All the best. the panda ₯’ 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the life of me I can't figure out this history. What I do know is that Nergaal moved four times, which is probably twice too many. I also know that they are not going to move that thing again and so, Panda and Harry, I really hope you don't mind but I think by now the block has outrun its purpose and I'm going to lift it, via IAR or clemency or so. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[219] Drmies did unblock out of due process. -DePiep (talk)

Maintain block as process said. (what is this? an amateur hobby site?). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the unblock is quite correct: Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate." And see WP:NOTLAW, WP:NOTBATTLE NE Ent 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DePiep, any time you want to stop acting like a petty jerk, you can. (Sorry, Ent, I probably shouldn't talk like that, but it's this vindictive wikilawyerish meanspirited gravedancing and backstabbing and tattletaling that sometimes make this place such a nasty place. Thank you, by the way.) What's more, you filed the complaint, great. You placed it here for admins to decide on the matter, which they did. Now go do something else. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies thinking he's Napoleon's grandchild "I asked you to stay away", [220] [221] makes ANI discussion useless. A priory. Now I can predict no admin will check on admin Drmies, but this point I want to state. So far already, another proof that internal admin control is worthless, and that ANI has the worst discussion quality on all enwiki. Then, in these situations there is this (now predictable) admin-personal-attack-editor text. -DePiep (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See here, where I suggested, obviously not explicitly enough, you stay away from my talk page. Don't know what Napoleon has to do with that. Also, it's "priori", with an i; not Priory, and "a priori" doesn't mean in English what it means in Dutch--what DePiep means is that ANI discussions are always already hopeless, of course, which begs the question of why they started this thread. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

When I want to challenge or question an admin's action, I am supposed to do to that admin. So I did, on your talkpage. Of course I did not recall your cursing, because most likely I did not read that post after the first offences. Still unexplained: [222], where you reverted (blanked) in an other persons talkpage. While in fact, I add, it was a remark to you, not to the user. But alas, we can predict the outcome. Criticising an admin for an admin action, any use ever? (I note the pattern: admins on ANI resort to personal attack very easily. Why not the other route?) -DePiep (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"thinking he's Napoleon's grandchild" is an unacceptable personal attack, and your posts on Nergaal's talk page are equally unacceptable. DePiep, stop now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Something else, but not so much

DePiep insists on leaving little "unacceptable" messages on Nergaal's talk page, right under my message about my unblocking Nergaal. I consider this in really poor taste, since DePiep seems to have taken great delight in Nergaal's block, even proposing here that 48 hours was "barely enough to restore the damage". In other words, in my opinion DePiep should stay away from that talk page, and is engaging in a kind of gavedancing. If they wish to take issue with my unblock they can do so on ANI; they should not do so there. In addition, they reverted my revert, saying an admin should know better; I think DePiep does not have much of a working knowledge of what admins are charged with (see above also), and I'm getting a bit tired of their bickering. I would like your assistance in keeping them off that talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the user is being very hostile at WT:ELEM and is not assuming good faith at all, constantly attacking other users. I would suggest that the admins need to look into the actions of DePiep to see if they are breaking any Wikipedia polices. TheMesquito^buzz 06:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would propose that an IBAN be enacted on Nergaal and DePiep, as DePiep seem to be intent on sullying the other users name, and I don't want to see a good editor like Nergaal (who made a mistake, mind you, in move warring but no one is perfect and seeing his last legitimate block was in October 2007) to leave the project because of attacks from DePiep. TheMesquito^buzz 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
— Mike Godwin [223]

It is not the role of admins to censor discussion on Wikipedia, and, unless, Nergaal has specificially asked DePiep to stay off the page, it's hard to see justification for reverting a single word opinion of an unblock. As a practical matter, it just turns a comment and one talk page notification into four. As far as factors that may influence Nergaal's future contributions to Wikipedia, I'd suggest the community focus on his words [224]. NE Ent 10:07, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth

Those of you with long memories may remember this review being imposed on User:Cwmhiraeth because she complained about harassment by User Afadsbad and his/her cronies. It's been running for over a month now, and is starting to repeat itself. User:Black Kite who offered to be the uninvolved admin, seems to have abandoned it. Can someone please review, make a decision and close? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor review is different from an RfC, and doesn't usually end in a "decision." I'd be interested in whether Cwmjiraeth feels she is still obtaining useful comments in the review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Even a show trial like this shameful episode should have a conc!fusion. And the harasser is still targeting Cwmhiraeth. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it is - the usual purpose is an informal discussion where an editor is asking for feedback as it is not an RfC. I think the best is for Cwmhiraeth to close it with a comment on how she will proceed from this. Any further comments by others that are ad hominem or groundless should then be treated like a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I made my comments on it a while back, after reading a lot of diffs and a lot of articles. However, those are just my views; no-one is required to actually take any account of them, and the issue has expanded quite a lot since then as well. Cas Liber is correct here. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting backup

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

---

Could we have another editor slip in here and help me deal with a rather fiery IP editor? 71.239.82.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to be precise. I removed huge blocks of unsourced BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam and he is simply not having it on the talk page. Help would be appreciated, thanks. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, Mr "not dave" is trying to begin a political battle; I am not. The facts of the matter are as follow. I went to a "celebrity" article, after editing at a serious article, where I have scholarly interest. That first article is Nazanin Fatehi. The celebrity article referred to in this first article was the further BLP text from Nazanin Afshin-Jam, which I found in a mess.

I did the following, in each case, writing a talk section before making the changes:

• updated information on MacKay's current position in government
• created the "Early life" section (so birth and immigration content did not appear solely in the lede)
• moved citations from the lede to appropriate places in the main body
• created a full citation for the Two Nazanins book (and added initial book review-type content)
• tagged three references inline as poor sources, and
• added some section and inline tags in the opening sections, to call attention to the direction this article needs to move.

I also noted that the key biographical detail—before today's work, 9 of 29 references, or >30% of sourcing, were from non-objective sources (i.e., non-independent, where the article subject supplied information to the website; see National Speaker Bureau and Halifax webpages). The citations/sourcing are therefore—for these and further reasons (much unreferenced factual content, bare URL and other footnote format issues, etc.)—substantially deficient. A multiple issues tag was therefore set.

ALL OF THESE INTENDED EDITS APPEARED IN TALK, BEFORE I ACTUALLY MADE THEM.

Mr "not dave" reverted a substantial portion of these changes, without any prior discussion at the article's Talk page. It is for that reason, and for his re-reversion, that the discussion became heated.

His perspective is that since some material in this article is unsourced it must be immediately removed—note, all of the unsourced material was already there when I began my edits, and had been for years. I only moved the material around, and added tags calling for new / better citations. Rather than deleting these, and with them, some information that did have citations, as "not dave" did, I took a softer line, per the added opening two section tags: I was asking previous editors to mitigate the situation, and add or improve references as needed. (Note, all uncited material appearing is positive, and, per the appearing tag, none appears to be libelous, and therefore demanding immediate attention.

Bottom line, "not dave" rushed to judgement. Now Neil has done the same. PLEASE, CONSIDER CAREFULLY, BEFORE TAKING SIDES, OR SIMPLY ADDING TO THIS CHILDISH REVERSION STRING.

Finally, it does not matter that I was originally editing IP. This is unacceptable stereotyping/prejudice, and against WP. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Dave is completely correct as you've been told repeatedly on your talk page: If someone removes unsourced material, you cannot just add it back in with the excuse "it was there before", especially on a WP:BLP. Find sources, then add material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please fully read above and comment, again. Please stop taking side before carefully weighing both arguments. This rush to judgment and teaming up by cliques at Wikipedia is endemic. You have a choice here, to be fair. Use it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What is stopping you from improving the article without re-adding unsourced or poorly sourced content? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Forensic referencing post hoc, by an individual other than the original editor is the poorest of ways, scholarly, to arrive at the original source used by one composing original text. I would have thought this to be prima facie obvious. What is stopping you from taking a mature, nuanced view of this editor conflict, fully reviewing the article history and full article Talk, considering the WPs being violated by "not dave" (and now, yourself), and not simply jumping in and taking a friend's side, as his request here was so clearly soliciting? I will add nothing further here, at all, and likely nothing further at the article site, either. You have made the decisions to set the quality. Enjoy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're actually expecting editors who have added unsourced material in the past to magically show up and add sources now then you need to spend more time here before asserting something is prima facie obvious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And just to add, Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, so I consider that opinion inappropriate for this situation. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

He's back again. Anyone else think that this warrants a block? ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You clique-orented editors are really something—please, understand if you try any such thing, I will elevate this to the administrators I know. Note, for the record here: (1) A moment ago this matter was closed, and you have reopened it to cause this further trouble. (2) These additional "citations needed" are explained in the Talk section. Grow up. Accept that others disagree with you. I am calling on you and your friend Niel, to act consistently at that article—you have said no unsourced material should appear. I am simply calling to your attention the rest of the material in the article that is clearly without sourcing. READ AND RESPOND IN TALK. Stop playing the clique game, or I will take advantage of the real fairness inherent to Wikipedia (though requiring and wasting inordinate time), and contact those I know. 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance at that edit makes me think it seems perfectly OK. What am I missing? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, you are missing a whole battle of the day, where "not dave" and Neil objected to me adding "citation needed" tags, rather, insisting that I should have carte blanch deleted all the sentences that were without citation. I objected to this, and they reverted consistently, to remove material that, though BLP, I felt was innocuous—which by leaving it, would would have given opportunity for other editors to complete their earlier writing efforts. Instead, these two editors insisted in deleting all of the text that were missing citations.

Here, in the remaining edits (adding tags), I am calling on them to be consistent. If all unsourced material needs to be removed, remove it all. I do not agree with this; I am merely asking this clique of editors to be consistent in the position they have laid out, and enforced together.

Finally, note, "He's back" violates a host of WP, beginning with presuming lack of good faith (which I have clearly laid out above). That someone disagrees strongly with you, "not dave", is not a reason to block them. But play your games, as you will. Le Prof (Writing from the road, am not an IP editor) 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

These edits are in violation of WP:POINT. Leprof 7272 was upset before because people were removing unsourced information from a BLP that was in dispute, so in retaliation they are adding citation tags all over the article. That seems to be the goal according to this section of the article talk page (and now in this ANI thread as well).

@71.239.82.39: @Leprof 7272: Cut this out, this tantrum can lead to a block. This is a formal warning. Also, please stick to your account, editing as both your account as an IP makes it difficult to respond to you and keep track of your edits. While doing what you're doing isn't a violation of WP:SOCK (you don't have multiple accounts and you're transparent about who you are) you're making things unnecessarily difficult for other editors. -- Atama頭 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

First, there is one editor, me, and I identify myself, always, as Le Prof, whether logged in or not. Any attempt to paint this as a case of WP:SOCK is specious. I log as I can, and this is my business, not yours, so long as I make clear who I am (and the singular IP and my signatures make this perfectly clear).

Second, there is no tantrum here, Atama, just an attempt to try to sort a continuing disagreement. Were "not dave" and Neil above board, they would admit their original revertive edits went too far, and were done in haste, without attention to the extensive early Talk that I dedicated to explaining what I was doing.

Third, the continuing matter is as I mention above—that "not dave" and "Neil" have ganged up to insist that any BLP material that is not sourced—all of which has been in the article for years, none of which was by my adding—should be removed from this article. I simply call on them to be consistent. If all must be removed, remove it all. SEE MY TALK SECTIONS, AT THE ARTICLE.

Finally, I am a mature academic, and this discourse is nonsense. This politicization of matters is what makes this place a growing desert of subject matter talent. Keep up if you will, but this is a clear case of careful scholarly hard work being confronted by proud, superficial (and tech-driven) pseudo mistake finding. Rise above it. See the forest for the trees. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll find that editors are disinclined to do your bidding. If you want to make an edit to the article, you make it. Not Dave did, and stood by it. I did, and I stand by it (contrary to your "above board" nonsense). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The first set of added tags, to the "Education and Red Cross work" section, had their intended effect: someone found an article that (on good faith I assume) must support the three statements in that paragraph. Bravo. Now, shall we block me for marking material that needs to be sourced? Shall we revert my other tagging edits, so there is no indicator that the further work needs to be done? Or shall we follow the Neil and "not dave" approach, and either delete those "citation needed" edits (hiding the work needing to be done) or delete all of the unsourced innocuous text (making it impossible for such good editing as just done on the "Education…" section to be accomplished)—best, shall we do as "not dave" suggests, and block me, so I you all can conduct business together, without the suggestion that there might be other, and even better ways? Your call. I care not. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 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, authoritarian editor in Snake articles

I am reporting the editor Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!}. The editor has taken over the Black mamba article, and it has been tedious work to fix erroneous data he added which has been shown to be added by him not in good faith, and one addition which is fabrication of scientific data. Further more he has deleted scientific consensus material from two other articles snakebite, Venomous snake, in order to hide his fraudulent editing in the black mamba article.

He seems to mostly cite from books, thinking nobody will check up on him and then quickly nominates his articles for GA without the reviewer knowing the manipulation of data. gaming the system to lock the articles etc. all in pretense of being an expert.

Basically he's motivation is to make his favorite snake appear more venomous by a huge margin 0.05-0.30. venomous snakes toxicity is commonly compared through subcutaneous injection testing of mice, representing a real bite (as seen in his deletion of the venom list in the two other articles - since his snake is not quoted due to lack of venom potency).

It all started here Talk:Black_mamba#Black_mamba_LD50_quote_is_incorrect. he defended his source quotation by false arguments, in which finally i was able to show directly from his own source that he fraudulently attributed to their quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple times he has been caught misrepresenting citations Talk:Black_mamba#Discussion_2 to promote his POV
• Removing of scientific consensus material of two other articles in order to promote his POV on the black mamba article Talk:Snakebite#RfC:Should_the_List_of_most_venomous_snakes_by_LD50_from_reliable_sources_stay_in_the_article.3F, Talk:Venomous_snake#No_more_.22Top_10_most_venomous_species.22_lists
• Fabrication of scientific data on the black mamba article Talk:Black_mamba#The_hypothetical_debate_is_over

I am opening this Incident request now , because the editor constantly present himself as "Academic" "an expert" etc. and he in not only misrepresenting citation he is fabricating information into them. i find it severely troublesome.

If you find this Incident case to be true, my practical suggestion is to put back the data in the two other articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venomous_snake&oldid=605989121
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339

and to revert the black mamba article back to when it represented clear scientific consensus data

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&oldid=605989081 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Real Issue Here

• Let's start with this IP editor's history. Admin Diannaa wanted to block the above IP editor for a wide range of Wikipedia policy and guideline violations. He almost entirely plagiarized the Inland taipan article. It wasn't "close paraphrasing", but outright plagiarism. Guess who figured that out? I did. Immediately afterwards, this IP editor began a full on assault on my credibility, my integrity, and I would even say he is somewhat obsessed with me due to a deep resentment and bitter feelings because I happened to discover his plagiarism, his complete disregard for any Wikipedia policies as evidenced by his continuous violations of said policies. He has attacked me personally, calling me a "charlatan" and accusing me of "fabricating data". This is a quote regarding this IP user and his recurrent issues with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just the other day, he violated the 3RR rule several times in a single day. His problems are ongoing and aren't going to stop because it is not borne out of concern for any articles integrity or factuality, but his bitter resentment of me and his desire to destroy my work or antagonize me because he perceives me as a hostile person (projective identification) because I found out all the problems he had caused in the inland taipan article, so he is trying to do the same to the article in which I put in most, if not all the work in. That is what it really boils down to, folks. I am trying to be civil, I have even altered the black mamba article in order to compromise, but this has gone in vain as he continues his assault on my person and the article. I have listed the most known LD₅₀ values for the black mamba, which is in line with the neutrality policy (represents viewpoint fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each). I have done that by giving different examples of toxicity (values in the article are from Minton, Spawls & Branch, Ernst & Zug, Brown, and Australian Venom and Toxin Database). The IP user prefers to use only HIS preferences, but that is not appropriate for such an article.

This is an administrator's quote regarding the violations of this IP user:

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound arrogant or patronizing, but this IP user (who is confirmed by an admin to use several IP addresses, and likely has an account on Wikipedia) is definitely an amateur because he shows a gross lack of the very basic concepts and knowledge of snake venom, venom variability, toxinology, venom composition (and the interactions between these components that can make a venom which, for example, tests as a 4 mg/kg (LD50) on mice, be particularly deadly to humans causing severe envenomation), scientific methodology, limitations to research studies, and other important scientific concepts. I happen to have studied herpetology, more specifically, ophiology at a university level. I'm also a Medical laboratory technologist. So this entire issue is due to one single issue which he seems to be obsessed with and that is LD₅₀ ratings of venomous snakes. This is what its about at the end. This should be of least concern to anyone who has a real interest in science, biology, and herpetology. Debates about which snake is more toxic should be left for kids, or those who lack real scientific curiousity for more pressing and important issues related to snakes and snake venoms. This is a non-issue. Why? Here's why:

• Lists of top ten venomous snakes don't belong in ANY encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. These kinds of lists belong maybe in a children's book. Venom composition is not static. Even within a single individual, it will vary in quantity and relative proportions of components over time. Greater variability in components is seen between individuals of a species, greater still between species. Further, venom continues to evolve, often very rapidly, so there may be wide variations in venom composition and toxicity within a single species, over its geographic range. This is especially true for widely distributed species and may cause problems in antivenom effectiveness. Factors involved in the variation of venom and its toxicity include diet/habit variability, seasonal changes, geographical location, age-dependent variability, gender-dependent/sexual variability, altitude, and the list goes on. Then you've got the research methods used. This can be critical, as some snakes produce many venom components, but eject them sequentially, rather than as a uniform mixture. The immediate fate of the venom after collection is important, particularly in relation to environmental conditions that might denature certain components. The storage of the venom is also vital, and exposure to heat may cause damage to certain toxins. Prolonged storage in liquid form may damage others. Pooled venom may introduce many variabilities, because each pooled batch of venom will contain venom from different specimens, compounding both intra-individual and intra-specific variability. There are many potential variables in such research that may affect comparability and interpretation of results. The choice of test animal may be crucial, because each species may respond differently (including humans). The choice of route is also critical. The standard test of toxicity is the LD₅₀. Mice are most commonly used. The LD₅₀ remains the most universal standard for determining and comparing toxicity of venoms. As an example, the rough scaled snake (Tropidechis carinatus) has a much less potent venom than the tiger snake (Notechis scutatus), on LD₅₀ testing in mice. Yet clinically, the two venoms are virtually identical in the type and severity of effects on envenomed humans. There are many examples just like this across all species. The black mamba is not the most venomous snake species in the world, but it untreated human moratality rates are 100% and produces death in the most rapid time. To compare, the many-banded krait has a more potent venom on mice, but doesn't produce the same devastating effects on humans the way the black mamba does. Many more examples are readily available. Mice aren't humans. Yes, they may give us an idea on toxicity, but they aren't the same as humans.--Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad he brought up the inland taipan article. that was his first attempt in deleting scientific consensus information in order to elevate his favorite snake - the black mamba.

What's more cynical, is he copied my style article writing in many places (sections, lead etc) in the black mamba, after complaining about my style.

He tried his best, even quoting a study showing that the black mamba venom was more toxic to monkeys then the inland taipans in a study. Not knowing that the inland taipan was discovered in australia only one year before the study publication and was not availabale to the scientific community. yet another "show of expertise" by him and misrepresenting citations. As usual only after tedious arguments he conceded to the fact , and erased that fact from the black mamba article.

I was a new editor to wikipedia when i edited the inland taipan article, and thought that citing pasages from sources with references doesn't conflict with copyright. it was a good faith mistake. But this was his way of gaming the system to kill that article which was in his way for his POV pushing in the black mamba article. Most of the information is back on the inland taipan article without making copyright violations, using multiple non conflicting scientific consensus references.

User:DendroNaja loves his original research POV to the point of deleting the mainstream published scientific consensus in other articles, and shamefully fabricating and misrepresenting his own citations. This has to stop (same ip editor)79.180.5.90 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the venom toxicity list. there were two lists originally in the snakebite article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=589136661#Cause

He had no problem with them not being "encyclopedic and for kids", he just killed one list that didn't list the black mamba, and he was itching to declare the black mamba "the fourth most venomous snake in the world" in his lead. So under the pretense of "more accurate citation is done via Saline with Bovine serum Albumin, and not saline alone". he left the other list to stay.

The list he was pushing to stay was found out to be not representing the citation and had nothing to do with Bovine serum albomin (surprise surprise) "First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3)." quote taken from the talk page

So a new list was made citing both modes from reliable sources (saline, and saline with Bovine serum albumin) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339#Most_venomous which non of them cite the black mamba in their top venomous snakes (for good reason).

As usual when he gets caught with misrepresenting citations, he changes his strategy. now suddenly putting venom lists "are for kids". though the final expanded list is sourced from lists published in peer review articles and academia (references 56,57,58).

Hypocritically, at the time he used this "kids play" in the black mamba article "Based on extensive and most comprehensive toxinological study conducted the toxicities of snake venoms by Ernst & Zug et al (1996), the black mamba is the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&diff=606120034&oldid=605989489

Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV. 79.180.5.90 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will give a classic example demonstrating this editor M.O when I say "Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV" :

An experienced editor/reviewer opened a WP:Good article reassessment section in the talk page, noting "There's so much that's wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start"

Other editors have agreed and commented as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_mamba#GAR)

User:DendroNaja Modus operandi is this : He bombards with what looks like a very knowledgeable and scholarly text. Here a fine example from that section, responding to one of the editors:

Now to the toxicity/LD50 issue: the black mamba is the 4th most venomous snake species in the world based on the study by Ernst & Zug (1996). That is unquestionable. The toxicity ratings obtained from this study/experiment is considered to be the most important toxicity study on snake venom in the world. This is due to several factors: first, the data that was obtained was based on snake venom that was collected from hundreds of specimens from some species, while for other other species, venom was collected from thousands of specimens from all different regions of a species' geographic range (which was the case for the black mamba - 1,200+ specimens of wild caught black mambas from all localities had their venom extracted). Zug et al. also used Fraction V (bovine serum albumin). This method is known to produce the highest purity precipitate, usually in the range of 98-99%. This precipitate is the dried venom which is then used to determine toxicity. Basically, this means the most accurate toxicity rating is obtained due to the purity of the precipitate. The study conducted by Ernst & Zug was extensive, costly and the scientific methods used had been proven to produce toxicity ratings that were consistent and although variation was still observed (as expected, it was insignificant). They were meticulous and the study is considered to be nearly flawless within the herpetological community. All other methods of determining snake venom toxicity always result in wildly varying toxicities, which is/was never the case with the 1996 study. In addittion, venom is usually collected from only a handful of specimens from each species (usually such experiments will study the toxicity of a very limited number of snake species, unlike the 1996 study). Up until now, there has been no single study that has been as large in scale as the 1996 study.

Except for the fact that Ernst & Zug listed the black mamba fourth on their list - the entire paragraph is completely fabricated. he literally made up EVERYTHING else regarding that list.

It took me some time, but i found Ernst & Zug note regarding their venom list, in their own book. On the columb heading LD50 they have a small star.

This star leads to their note regarding the list (page 120) "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous

Do you get it? Ernst & Zug simply collected info from other studies, and they mixed up all the data which makes it un-citable regarding mode of injection, and if it is Saline alone or saline + Bovine Serum Albumin. Ernt & Zug book "Snakes in Question:the Smithsonian answer Book" is a popular science book: "New titles for a popular audience from SP/SP included Snakes in Question and Bats in Question, part of the Smithsonian Answer Book series. These inviting, easy-to-read books, written by Smithsonian experts, satisfy the curiosity of both adults and children." http://archive.org/stream/annalsofsmithson1997smit/annalsofsmithson1997smit_djvu.txt . I'm starting to believe that User:DendroNaja is a compulsive liar. (same ip editor) 79.177.130.168 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not attracting any administrator attention, because it's basically a content dispute, and admins don't make content decisions. You would be better served trying dispute resolution. WP:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't getting any attention because it's a content dispute, contains walls of text, bickering between the disputants, and a host of other issues that I cover in WP:ANI Advice (I've been spamming this essay on here because I'm fed up with this crap on ANI).--v/r - TP 19:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable data contribution which is argued about indeed should be dealt in dispute resolution. which i have earlier started on those talk pages. The nature of the dispute changed once it was proved that User:DendroNaja is fabricating scientific data (from a cited book, that could not be verified easily as a web link) and also deliberately misrepresenting citations in his arguments, which in turn led to the present corruption of three articles black mamba, Snakebite, venomous snake). This is the core reason i approached the panel of admins here to address. (same ip editor)79.180.139.200 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator will make the call as to whose data is correct. It's not part of what admins do. Please see the information at WP:Dispute resolution, which offers several possible venues to assist in resolving this matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We've had trouble with snake articles before. There is a blocked editor whose name I can't recall right now but maybe a checkuser is in order. Warping content is a serious charge and should be investigated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Update - right, it was Sebastian80 (talk · contribs), also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive - @Sasata:, any comments on the content? and @Drmies: who looked into this previously? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha Casliber, I stopped here before you pinged me. Yes, that was fun. Interesting: fairly new account, black mamba, from Canada, interest in snakies and DYK and GA (6 already? quick learner!). I mean, compare user boxes, even. So please, let someone run CU, and get ready to have a good look at the GAs.

Now, on another note, for all those admins who blah blah TLDNR content dispute and all that jazz--please consider more seriously that where there's smoke there may be fire, and that we should take IP edits on good faith as well. Thank you--and thank you Casliber for looking into this and pinging me. Someone should make you an admin one of these days. :) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the snake content contributed by this editor that I have looked at is problematic. I've noticed a couple of incidents of close paraphrasing/copyvio in Black mamba and Eastern green mamba, and I suspect that more issues will be revealed when I can get to the library and check the print sources (but AGF and all that...). Sasata (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked Sebastian80 on their talk page if they could please stay the hell away from GA in any future reincarnation. They couldn't--see Talk:Black mamba/GA3 (Casliber, you'll be interested in that given Talk:Black mamba/GA2, the delisting). Sasata, the problem with Sebastian is that they think they know shit, like a lot of it, and they don't. Plus, they can't really write--typical biology major, maybe, with a C- in freshman comp. So we have the Dendro-Sebastian problem right now, which CU will deal with shortly I hope, and then we have the bigger problem of GA (pinging HueSatLum here). Is it the case (you know the article better than me) that the article was in better shape when it was reviewed for GA? Do we want to yank that little green cross again, regardless of whether what HueSatLum passed was a valid GA or not? (I don't doubt their good faith, but that's not the issue here.) Or could we revert to the article as it was in an earlier state and still claim, hand on heart, that this is a GA we're looking at?

Sasata, you sound like you know what you're talking about; perhaps you can have a look at their other GAs as well. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When I passed the article as a GA back in January, it met my standards for GA; since then, I have admittedly not always kept track of major changes to the article. I have been following but not participating in the discussion on the talk page because my knowledge of the scientific matters discussed there is very limited. As it stands, the article would most likely fail GAN due to its instability and potential copyvio. To me, a potential casual reader of the article, the "Venom, envenomation and antivenom" section seems quite long and technical, and I have not yet looked into the alleged copyvio. (For the record: a diff of the article as I passed it versus the current revision) /~huesatlum/ 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You understand why I'm pinging you--not to impugn your GA reviewing; if you can tell me, hand on heart, that the version you passed is a GA, you could consider reverting to that version, and perhaps reinstating whatever positive edits were made by other editors?

Sebastian was in the habit of doing GA reviews also, and getting Black mamba at GA is a long obsession of theirs. In other news, I've been going through some old edits of some old socks (VeronicaPR (talk · contribs) and Thegoodson (talk · contribs) (pretty disgusting appropriation of a Nick Cave classic). What they all have in common, besides sssssnakies, is Temazepam. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've semi'ed that last one for six months then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What can I say? Thank you guys ! Truth has (finally) prevailed. Gosh that was one nasty snake to bag. (same ip editor)79.179.132.166 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Both editors may have a bias. [225] is an exaggerated claim of consensus by IP79* for either edit to the lead [226] or [227], and this is the discussion of that section Talk:Black mamba#GAR. Some edits by IP79* seemed drastic causing alarm, but after examination many of the edits were agreed upon. Still, the specific edits to the lead, which were difficult to follow the changes, were not agreed upon, by the claim of consensus. I think both editors are capable of contributing, but the IP should be more diplomatic and introduce changes (as to the lead) gradually where people can readily distinguish it by looking at the diffs. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidelight12 This editor is a known Academic Charlatan with a very long history on wikipedia. See for example what one Admin that blocked him in his past reincarnations wrote about him. It is almost word for word the same conclusions i came up with. Unfortunately you were one of the editors he tricked in thinking he is a legit and serious expert. I guarantee you, that now, my edit to the lead will not only not look "extreme", but be welcomed. And you will see the serious pruning of that article once the admins here get to work. I am also at service if needed. (same ip editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.166 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I have blocked the editor indefinitely. A comprehensive interaction report between DendroNaja and previous socks (including socks confirmed by CheckUser) can be seen here. Between that and the eerily-similar user page to Sebastian80, that was more than enough to convince me per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 16:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add, that None of User:DendroNaja citations can be considered reliable. we simply can't be sure what he "fixed". i mean that person had no limits. I just had a look a section in the' venomous snake' article. He used my own references which i used in the inland taipan article and he miss-quoted them intentionaly: " Lists or rankings of the world's most venomous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" This is his manipulation for showing don't trust venom lists (because black mambas are not listed in them..), and you can see an editor (AIRcorn) in the RfC section in the talk page has been convinced by this sentence. But the real sentence is "Lists or rankings of the world's most dangerous snakes are tentative and differ greatly because of numerous factors.[1][2]" and this is off-course true. (numerous factors:Venom potency,disposition,size, human mortality etc) (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys if you would unlock those three articles: black mamba, snakebite, venomous snake (which he got them locked by gaming) and maybe write something in the talk page to clarify the situation to other editors, i am willing to fix the stuff i recognize he corrupted. (same ip editor) 79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And the Rfcs that i started prior to the ANI on all three articles can be closed by one of you too.79.179.106.114 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Snakebite was still protected. Go for it. It would be funny if you were someone else's sock and we just gave you the keys to the liquor cabinet--but Materialscientist is probably looking over your shoulder. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are so funny. :) . Thank you very much for taking me seriously and addressing this case. (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed some of the other pages edited frequently by the user that are not actively being edited much at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And thank you too Cas Liber. You were the first one to roll the ball (I almost lost hope). (same ip editor)79.176.118.185 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

I can vouch for the fraudulent citations by this user, we had a similar incident on Angelina Jolie, which eventually earned them an indefinite block (which was subsequently removed). HelenOnline 09:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey...who locked the liquor cabinet. I need a shot.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I remember that nightmare with Angelina Jolie's article and talk page. I think most of those edits had to be rev'deleted. Really improper WP:OR on a BLP that was more appropriate for the National Enquirer. But he promised to stick to snake articles. I guess that didn't work out, either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: would you mind also unlocking the inland taipan article please. The banned editor also gave me there a false reputation as a "vandal/disruptive" editor, so an admin locked it again. Thank you (same ip editor) 79.178.152.192 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pinging EdJohnston and Diannaa about this. There's a couple of issues in the history and on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for an IP-hopper to participate effectively in dispute resolution. An editor may prefer not to create an account but we should not give complete deference to that if he wants to work on contentious topics. What we need on the snake articles might be a series of RfCs, which will require time and patience. At present there is no RfC at Talk:Inland taipan, but an IP could create one if they wanted. I would not support lifting the semiprotection on Inland taipan, though another admin might do so if they were confident they had consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I gladly yield to you. The IP can always participate via the talk page and RfCs, as you note. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Day

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

---

This article is presently attracting a fair amount of vandalism. It might be a good idea to semi-protect it until the holiday is past. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was all coming from one IP and it's been blocked. There are legitimate edits by IPs happening there too as late as yesterday so I don't think semi is warranted here.--v/r - TP 22:05, 5 May 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.

Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster attempting to edit ASmallWorld

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.

---

New users Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster have admitted they are employees of asmallworld and are working together in violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK as well as admitted WP:COI. I think that both users and there IP addresses should be blocked from editing the asmallworld page. The relevant statements and diffs are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607201353&oldid=607200956 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607202846&oldid=607201353 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AASmallWorld&diff=607200956&oldid=607194331 Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also both accounts were created today and have not attempted edit any other pages. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Actually the Muriellefinster account was created on 2012-03-27. Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, these two accounts (which have 5 edits between them) have only edited the article talk page. Typically, cases that are brought to AN/I are not preemptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (my comment was deleted in an edit conflict with My name is not dave)

Cool, sorry for the wrong info on the Muriellefinster account. I thought that since they admitted they worked for the company there could be a limited block as to editing that page, since it has in the past been the subject of vandalism from IP addresses and is therefore now semi-protected. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Also I thought the meat/sockpuppeting should be brought up as that is not preventive. The two users are in the same office and communicating, if they are not in fact the same person. So I thought I would bring all three relevant issues to this board. Sorry if that was inappropriate. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't suggest a block on these accounts, mainly because they are doing the right thing by suggesting potentially COI edits on the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Did they suggest COI edits? They mentioned edits that are in their perspective 'biased', 'spammy', and 'personal in nature' which are all comments on the content not on a COI. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:20, 5 May 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.

Massive POV Pushing from user: Jyoti.mickey

User: Jyoti.mickey is keep pushing POV on article Abhinav Bharat and removing sourced materials from the article making it unblanced from a neutral point of view. Please, check this diff[228] with the current revesion[229] particularly he changed all my edits from the Allegations of involvement in terrorist activity which were sourced from reliable sources here[230] with this source[231] and specially here[232] where I tried to omit the weasel terms and put as per source but he reverted and added back the tags. He also removed the word right-wing here[233] even without looking at the sources. Then also removed the category far-right politics in India while the very first sentence says it ultra-far-right from at least 2 references. The article is not neutral after removing sourced contents like here[234] particularly sections like Relationship with Sangh Parivar groups, History including the Caravan magazine findings here[235]. He also removed the arrest of some of the leaders of the group and the misterious shut down of the group's website here[236] all of which were cited from sources with no original research, anyone can check. Edmondhills (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please check the diff 295 and 296. I think my edit summary is descriptive and presents my stand clearly.

For 297 the change was re-inserted by me within minutes. It is _present_ in the article much before you mentioned it here and in the article talk page, where I had mentioned the change in a separate section.

When you put right-wing the reference you mention was _not_ present, you added _new_ sources in a _subsequent_ edit after I mentioned in my edit summary that the references do not say so. The opening statement is "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Would you call that neutral when there was a much less charged lead earlier? Doesn't it contain weasel terms?

How is this article related to 'politics'? I asked same question in my edit summary.

Basically I think I put my edit summary quite clear each time. I object to you doing bulk over-write of the entire article from a very old copy and discarding all the intermediate edits with perfectly fine and descriptive edit summary. Why can't you do that? You can find a diff for each of the edit from one month back or so. I have absolutely no objection if you take the article to last good state and make your edits incrementally with descriptive edit summary instead of bulk over-write of entire article from much older copy. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. It is not convenient nor possible for me to respond to all diffs you have pointed above, from my side it will boil down to the above argument and I am dead sure I give a descriptive enough edit summary each time to make my stand clear. The article talk page also stands proof I responded promptly and took to discussion any matter of dispute. Jyoti (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, you removed the word right-wing as this wasn't cited[237] then why did you remove text on History section instead tagged with a {{cn}} tag[238]?Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand that the opening sentence of the lead is highly biased? That is why. After bringing the discussion here you have made 9 more edits to the article, aren't we supposed to refrain from doing more edits to the same article before we complete discussion here? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, explain what is biased in opening sentence which is properly sourced with references? You need to stop editing from your POV. I edited the article with only sourced material that is verifiable so I don't find any harm doing that.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the problem is not limited to the article mentioned by Edmondhills and thus this may be more than just a content dispute. There have been issues at Narendra Modi, for example, involving this contributor's alleged POV and there are quite a few warnings on their talk page relating to it. I'm off out, though, so diffs will have to follow later. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush, I think we discussed this on the talk page of the article and reached a consensus about the edits on Narendra Modi page. We reached consensus on on all four edits in the article talk page discussion started by me, we retained two of my four edits. Do you not agree to this? Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the four talk page discussion with consensus reached within one day for three and withing three days on another. I have done exactly four one line edits to the article a few weeks back(and ever) and had started discussion on each one and we reached consensus. 1, 2, 3, 4.Jyoti (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Th issue is not whether the consensus reached or not the issue presented here that you are pushing POV not just in Abhinav Bharat but also in other articles.Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to convey that the talk page discussion above and the related edits demonstrate pov pushing? By what logic? Does every discussion implicitly convey a pov pushing. Sitush, I would prefer you to comment on this one. Do I not have the right to hold a different opinion and discuss it, did I edit the article even once after those discussion or caused any disruption? Did I not agree to your suggestion unconditionally that the article is in volatile state and lets leave it for now? And you also noted that you were not aware of the entire situation in the fourth discussion. Is this termed as pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[239] or even this[240] and putting back dead links like here[241] where this dead link[[242] was replaced by this live link [243] from the same source. My last revision was this[244].Edmondhills (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My main concern and motive for behaving the way I did is, this is the article a day back, you transformed it into this which is basically an old copy herehere. Here is the single edit where you bulk reverted. You ignored all previous edit summary and re-inserted from much older copy. Why would you revert entire sections, including section headers and loose all intermediate edits?

For the first diff you provided please check that the statement was reinserted immediately, it is present in the article much before you pointed it here. The second one, I have not mentioned original research in the comment. When you copy-pasted from a much older edit all intermediate edits are lost and I found it extremely annoying and tiresome to pick new contribution from it and re-instate them along with the changes lost or changes rejected with valid edit summaries before. The dead link also got in when I tried to restore to the last good state.

You inserted charged terms like 'dictator', I think that is pov pushing. Jyoti (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If the term is not present in the sources then feel free to remove it. I was BOLD and added what is cited in sources so Again, the diff[245] you provided shows I just put back referenced text which you removed :-).Edmondhills (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have edited your reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff: "I didn't charged terms like 'dictator' but this is your OR". Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave a diff in which you introduced the term. Do you disagree? How is it my original research? Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed a lot of sourced materials from the page in your subsequent edits to the page. You actually not reverted back but deleted the sourced material and put back the old texts in the article. Even after fixing dead links like[246] you also changed them[247] and specially in this edit you called original research, not present in source[248] and removed the whole paragraph which was exactly cited by this source[249]. You're playing with edit summery but your edit summaries were incorrect. You have to maintain neutrality instead of showing sympathy for an extremist organization. Edmondhills (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And I restored to an older version because you removed several text from the article because the references were dead which is also against WP:404. Edmondhills (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly this edit[250] showed how you just pushed POV by changing the wordings. The source[251] does say Investigations have revealed that serving and retired army officers associated with Abhinav Bharat but you changed to Serving and then tagged in subsequent edits. Edmondhills (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time I am responding to this one at a third place. They were restored by me within minutes without you having to point me out. They _are_ _present_ in the article. Stop presenting incomplete picture. You copy pasted the entire article from a month old copy, what about all the edits in between? You admit to doing it above. What about the open discussion on the talk page. And why have you made 9 more edits to it after opening discussion here, aren't we supposed to continue discussion here and mutually agree to one course? I want you to revert to last good state and edit on top of it. Your bulk-copy paste overwrites several edits in between. You inserted charged terms like 'dictator' that is pov pushing. I stand by my edit summary. If there was a mistake I have reverted this once without you having to prompt. Stop pulling that same diff and raking it up? Do you disagree that it has been fixed within mins by me itself? What is your continued contention regarding it? I copied the version before your bulk copy paste that is it. I can do edits on top of it, or you can. Did you even attempting that? Jyoti (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your restoration is removal of sourced material so this is not acceptable. You should be careful when restoring and shouldn't remove cited materials even if the references are dead s per WP:404.--Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You overwrote with an older copy. You are cross posting in ani as well as continuing to edit the article. Is it okay to do it in less than 24h of you having raised an objection in ani, can we not wait to reach a consensus? You have made 9 more edits and I do have several objections to it like 'dictator', the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization", writing irrelevant stuff under sub-section 'history', adding the caravan story here as encyclopedic content and much more but you are tiring me with nonsensical arguments and raking up the same diff even when I have corrected it before you point out and also responding to you at every place you are mentioning it. Jyoti (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

All 9 edits are constructive and backed by references but reverted them all[252] so please, explain what is irrelevant in sub-sections. And for the lead it is absolutely okay. As per you then Indian Mujahideen's lead is also biased! Is it? --Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have editedyour reply above inline and changed its message. Your earlier reply can be seen in the diff. The revert diff that you give now is much older and the 9 edits that I mention above are much after that revert, I have not touched those nine edits of yours which you did after starting this ani page discussion, there are there in the article even now. Jyoti (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you have made a judgement that your edits are constructive and my edits are pov pushing? I have repeatedly raised one single point only -- why loose all intermediate edits? -- why overwrite with much older edit? I think I am fully justified in objecting to use of 'dictator', and the opening over-surcharged statement "Abhinav Bharat is an ultra-right-wing Hindu extremist organization". Since you have passed the judgement and continued editing the article and cross-posting on talk page despite a discussion here what is the course of action? I am refraining from any activity on this article until we reach a course of action here. Jyoti (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is not constructive edits. And there is not over-surcharged statement when it is backed by several reliable sources otherwise you will find all most all similar groups have such over-surcharged statement. Now, please don't say that the sources are biased as they cites your over-surcharged statement. And if you are referring to intermediates edits then you already did so and I haven't reverted you. In my subsequent edits I just put what is cited in references. Its you removed the sources as they were dead then removed text and now you have issue with the lead. Edmondhills (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You over wrote from a month old state. You lost the intermediate edits in that. I am pointing about ach edit (and summary) of that duration. Jyoti (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You're just have this one issue of old state which you have already pushed in the article and I didn't reverted you so what point you're trying to make with this? And my concern is you removed sourced materials and references which go against the ultra-right-wing organization and undid my edits where I tried to resolve the weasel words as per sources.Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whichever admin happens to take this up please check the talk page of the article also. User:Sitush, I hope you will also check once before making a hasty comment. This user is wearing me down with changing goal post and cross-posting. Not once is the user agreeing or responding to going to last good state and editing on top of it. Jyoti (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop your accusations. You removed sourced materials, dead references which can be easily fixed with google search and now accusing me of wearing you down with changing goal post and cross-posting. And thanks to User:Sitush for bringing your edits on Narendra Modi page. Also, admins should check your contributions like this[253] as you seem to have editing from not a particular POV. You are saying over-surcharged statement for an entity which gained prominence for allegedly terrorist activities[254][255][256] and now a SPI aigainst me to ban me. Edmondhills (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I have nothing to add here what I have not already said. Jyoti (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits like[257],[258] and [259] are serious POV pushing. I request admins to take a look at the article's history and do the needful to resolve this issue. Edmondhills (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not go through the whole post here but I think this is a talk page dispute. Edmondhills somewhere above you mentioned that I can't understand why this editor is removing referenced materials in the name of original research like this[260] If that sentence is not present in the source as mentioned by Jyoti then you are just insisting to use a wrong source which is not a right thing to do. You call your edits as "BOLD" edits while Jyoti's as POV!. My advice, calm down both of you. Take a third opinion if required, go for a DR. I see that Jyoti has made efforts to dicuss on talk page, may be you can take it back to where this "edit-war" started and discuss each changes. -sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

sarvajna, I think you're not neutral here. Firstly, you didn't read the whole discussion secondly, did you really take a look at the diff you mentioned[261]? The sentence is indeed present in the source and here it is clear that you're considering jyoti's edits is fair without judging the diffs I provided like this[262]. You took something middle of this discussion so, please honestly tell, did jyoti emailed you for this? Edmondhills (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: After checking your edits like[263] and declined block request here[264], I am inclined to disbelief your comment. Edmondhills (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to add this instance[265] where the editor changed live references like[266] back to dead link[267] again. Edmondhills (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Katieh5584

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

---

for continuously violating the wikipedia entry of Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. She keeps deleting a series of images I hold the copyright for. AmmarAbdRabbo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You were edit warring over the insertion of images that were already deleted in Commons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The images were still visible to me.Katieh5584 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has been blocked by admin DangerousPanda for edit warring. TheMesquito^buzz 23:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And Materialscientist has unblocked them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Always amusing to see declare their intent not to donate to WP as if their donation somehow grants them some sort of extra privileges. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 6 May 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:Oglesruinsand Club América Soccer Academy‎

User:Oglesruins keeps removing the redirect on Club América Soccer Academy (from [268]. He has been warned twice, but continues on. More recently, looks like he's taken to undoing edits I've made on other pages only in spite. LionMans Account (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive837#User:Oglesruins. This editor is simply not here!! - "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and seem to have a CiR native language problem as noted before. A ban is in-order - hard to change someone editing habits if they have no interest in talking to the community about the problems raised by editors. -- Moxy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor that initiated the AfD on Club America Soccer Academy, I can't take any administrative action against Oglesruins, nor protect the page (as a redirect). If his only problem is at the Club America page, then proetcting the redirect is sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Club America seems his worst problem. However, since then, he insists on undoing edits I've made elsewhere, namely List of developmental and minor sports leagues, where he keeps adding in a local rec league and a fictitious league I've removed from there. I guess he's hit 3RR there already though. LionMans Account (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Club America is far from his only problem. The main problem is that he never discusses on talk pages, and repeatedly engages in edit wars. He does read edit histories and responds to them, often with bravado. See his talk page for previous bans and extensive complaints going back several months. I've repeatedly tripped over him at Mexico. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked him for one week for edit warring and reverted him on the Club America article. I didn't protect as he is the only one that is trying to upend consensus and the block should be sufficient. This is his third block. If he comes back warring, I will personally indef block him, as he has had plenty of warnings. This is all the generosity I can muster with this kind of warring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Histmerge needs undoing

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:Master of Puppets "boldly" histmerged Valyrian language and Dothraki language into Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire (then Language in Game of Thrones) on 30 April. He was then told by 2 (now 3) different people to undo the histmerge here, but refused. (Apparently, BRD doesn't apply to this case because.) He's not been on since. Can one of you brilliant souls here see to it? — lfdder 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He's now responded on his talk page, but he's not actually said that he will be undoing it. — lfdder 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize what you're asking for? Articles should not be hist merged just to merge articles. Only forks with no overlapping edits should be merged. Splitting articles is very delicate, painful, and tedious. No offense to MoP - but if he's screwed up then it's his mess to clean up. At least, that's my feelings on the subject as unhelpful as they are.--v/r - TP 03:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's also your mess to clean up, as one of the community's elected overlords. — lfdder 03:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: 'volunteer' overlords.--v/r - TP 03:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not an argument; we're all volunteers. I did not say that you must clean it up, mind you. — lfdder 03:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook "what were you thinking" situation: we now have diffs like this one in the page history. MoP, please make this your highest priority when you're next online. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it later when i'm not at work if nobody beats me to it. Every revision before April 5, 2013‎ belongs to Dothraki language so it shouldn't be too annoying to sort the rest out. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, done. The histories should now be in their correct places at Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire, Dothraki language and Valyrian languages. I did that quickly so if I've got a stray revision in the wrong place let me know and I'll fix it. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, I didn't realise Talk:Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire was merged too, I'll do that later. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Xezbeth. — lfdder 14:52, 6 May 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.