Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article

An IP who uses addresses in the range 109.77.xx.xx has been changing a to an before acronyms (and occasionally the other way around) which I and several other users have reverted. Discussion has been initiated at User talk:109.77.131.0 and User talk:109.77.143.236 but they have not replied and possibly have not even seen it, nor are they likely to see it anytime soon if at each logon they use a different IP in the range.

The latest batch was from 109.77.8.128 [1]. I have now attempted to start a discussion at Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article, which they may see, but there's no evidence they have yet used any talk page, so again they may not.

Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP may be related to Mr. Bumble in Dickens' Oliver Twist, who famously said, "...the law is a ass—a idiot!" Perhaps that quote will attract him/her :) Rklear (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They do appear to have had the same teacher. (;->

But seriously, there's no evidence that this is other than good faith. But there is a growing risk that someone will jump on the contributor as a vandal (again in good faith).

Plus, of course, it's a nuisance! Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your "latest batch" of edits above, I see that Resource Reservation Protocol has been hit 5 times now since the first of the month, twice by IPs in the 93.107.x.x. range. This means that the IP range is wider than first indicated, but it also means that the user is rechecking his/her work. Linking to that talk discussion in the undo edit summaries, if it's done over and over (which it obviously has to be), might get some attention. Rklear (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a big, loud editnotice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit notice is a good idea I think, and maybe it wouldn't need to be especially big or loud. I'm reading Wikipedia:Editnotice which is all new ground to me. It appears to me that I could easily create a suitable notice that appeared to all editors of an affected article, but this does need me to act as an admin as it's in the main namespace, and if there's a policy governing this use of admin powers (apart from responsible commonsense) I haven't yet found it. Are we pioneering here? (Sometimes we need to!)

It may even be worth creating a template to post on articles as they are "hit", see Wikipedia:Editnotice#Batch of identical editnotices. But just a notice on one article, say XMPP, would be a good start.

Using a template specific to this incident would allow us to easily identify all articles from which the notice needs to be removed once this issue is resolved. Andrewa (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome suggestion re wikilinking in the edit summaries... I should have thought of that! We'll try it. I've created an anchor at Talk:XMPP#please discuss to make the link a bit more concise.

Good observation also regarding the number of IPs involved, see subsection below on notifications. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is Vodaphone, on 109.77.128.0/20 I think. 4096 addresses. I checked a couple of the /24s within that but not all. Some traffic but not tons. Blocking isn't a first resort, but those IPs rotate frequently, so talk page messages aren't much of a help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at what might be the most recent batch [2] (not sure on that, or even how to watch for them) and the edits have all been reverted already, so I can't do it myself and put the wikilink to Talk:XMPP#please discuss into the edit summary. I'll lurk for a little, hoping to catch one. The edit notice is looking a better idea. Another possibility is to put a heads-up linking to these discussions on the talk pages of editors who do such reverts, and ask them to put the wikilink in their edit summaries the next time they do such a revert.

I've posted some heads-ups on affected article talk pages, pointing here and to the XMPP talk page section. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also now successfully posted an editnotice on XMPP and Resource Reservation Protocol, using a template I created at Template:Indefinite article and pointing to the talk page discussion. This same template can be used to add a similar notice to other affected articles. Hopefully in this way we will make contact with the contributor. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification

In view of the number of IPs involved, see above, the presumption that it's a single user, and the fact that notices to the affected IP talk pages so far have produced no response, is it reasonable to abandon future attempts to contact the contributor via IP talk pages? This would arguably be an exception to the edit notice above You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. Andrewa (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but it appears that most if not all the articles this person is editing are listed in Template:IPstack. If you post on those talk pages, it may serve to alert the reverting editors, at least. Rklear (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there's no reason to think they'll look at the article talk pages. They may, but the evidence so far is that they don't. But they would see an edit notice.

Good point about template:IPstack. There seem to be over 100 articles that use it [3] and while only a smaller number are directly listed in the template, four categories are also listed (follow the more links) which probably contain them all. Maybe put the editnotice on some of those specifically listed for a start. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:QM400032’s signature contains no links

Despite requests and reminders by myself and others ([4]), User:QM400032 has not restored the userpage links to his custom signature ([5], [6]), in violation of WP:SIGLINK. I’m not sure if this is the most appropriate place to take the issue after trying the user’s Talk page; if it isn’t, I’ll apologize and move it wherever it fits. —Frungi (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is the right place. They need to insure their signature does include a link to either their talk page, user page or contribs page per WP:Signature, which is a real guideline and states: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" It doesn't say "may" or "should", it it says "must", which is a rare word in policy and guideline and used for a reason. Maybe they didn't know, or accidentally messed up the links, but refusing to do so will get someone blocked, so hopefully they will show up here and figure out how to fix it so it does comply with our guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  Just an observation, but I find it interesting that the word "must" is used on something "...that editors should attempt to follow..." :) Rockfang (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was wondering about that too—why isn’t that requirement on a policy page? But obviously this isn’t the place for that. —Frungi (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  The template uses 'should' as it is generic template and there are very few policies with 'must' on Wikipedia; WP:SIGLINK is one of them. WP:NOTBURO cuts both ways, just because the template on top says 'should' doesn't overrule the actual 'must' of the policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've been particularly concerned with this editor lately as a lot of the templates that they are making have been taken to AFD. Also, there's a userbox he has that says he has been blocked before, but his block log is clean. --Rschen7754 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  I'm most concerned about this because of one minor issue. I keep getting edit-conflicted by SineBot whenever I try to immediately reply to a question from him. I know that is a minor gripe, but it's still pretty annoying. TCN7JM 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've left a message on their talk page that spells it out. If they do not fix their signature, we can only assume they are trying to be disruptive and a block should follow suit. Hopefully, that won't be necessary as it seems silly to fight something so obvious within policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't know that it's intentionally disruptive. My guess would be would be lack of competence (he doesn't understand what's wrong, and/or how to fix it) based on the sections above that one, like the one where he responds to someone posting a file-permission notice with I don't know how to resolve fair use copyright violation! Could you please show me how? and responding to a bot with I'll get to it as soon as possible. I think he just doesn't grasp everything that's going on. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis's message on the talk page was unambiguous, and they've edited since then without adjusting their signature. So now they're blocked until they do. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Please see also this edit to their edit notice. Given the current discussion, this older edit to their edit notice is funny. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's actually his IP - he doesn't seem to be able to make sure to stay logged in when he edits, among his other issues. --Rschen7754 02:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Now moot per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenday25. --Rschen7754 08:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Alansohn

On the Red Bank, New Jersey article, I removed this material for reasons that I spelled out in the edit summary. A comment about Red Bank increasingly becoming a high-end shopping mecca was not found in the cited source, nor was the statement about "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". The cited source, which supported only the opening of a Tiffany's, was a press release by Tiffany themselves. This left only a mention of a brewery, supported by a book archived at Google Books, and a what appeared to be a personal fan site. I didn't challenge the reliability of the book, but this raised the question of whether one business merited its own section, and more importantly, whether mentioning individual businesses is even relevant or salient, particularly when there is nothing unique about that business (like whether it's the flagship store or the company's headquarters).

Alansohn reverted the edit, saying in his edit summary "rv removal of sourced content, with some editing". This despite the fact that the source did not mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters", something Alansohn did nothing to address. For this reason, I again reverted the unsourced material, saying, "Revert. A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS, and it doesn't mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". That leaves one brewery, which doesn't merit a section."

Alansohn found a source for some of the material, and restored it, leaving out the unsourced information, but did so with the edit summary "rv malicious removal of sourced content, all material that was easily sourced; press release from a top firm meets all requirements of WP:RS, though feel free to replace it".

First of all, whether something is "easily sourced" is irrelevant. The material was not sourced, and it is not my responsibility to source material added by other editors. That I already do so at times ([7],[8]), despite my already heavy edit workload, is a courtesy, not a requirement, and I'm tired the obnoxious edit summaries in which Alansohn implies otherwise, a practice in which he has been engaging in for some time now.

Second, my edits were based on sincere, good-faith readings of Wikipedia policy on my part. They were not motivated in any way by "malice", nor has Alansohn even bothered trying to illustrate how he knows my state of mind. Material that was not sourced was removed, in accordance with WP policy, and he himself omitted quite a bit of it in his most recent restoration of some of it, presumably because he saw that it was not found in the source cited in the article, or even in the new one he found (despite it being so "easily" sourced). If that's the case, then how could removing it have been "malicious"? His comment is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Someone needs to politely inform him of this. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Alansohn was well out of line here, but I'd be interested to hear their side of the story as well, to see why they acted like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is rather clear: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step..... If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I believe that all editors have an obligation under policy to preserve content and I will take all reasonable actions to preserve it as required (see this edit for a recent example) by seeking out possible sources; Nightscream follows a We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which he usually fails to make any attempt to find sources, blindly removes the content and then WP:BITEs newbies with claims of WP:V / WP:NOR that are unjustified in most occasions. In this case, removal of sourced content was even less justified. No one ever challenged the material in the Red Bank, New Jersey article. The material was reliably sourced (note that per WP:SELFPUB, a press release is a reliable source) in addition to other sources in the section. Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification. The material was then reinserted with additional sources intended to address any possible objection that Nightscream might ever have. Over and done, one would think. Nightscream seems to be upset that sources were added, as has happened many times before in articles we both edit, where Nightscream removes unsourced content and I reinsert it with sources found with trivial ease. See this edit, where Nightscream removed material regarding a proposed Formula One race that was on the front page of every newspaper in the New York City metro area calling it a "WP:V/WP:NOR" violation, while I reinserted the material with appropriate sources (here) minutes later. This process has happened often and it seems to bother Nightscream deeply. Besides, claims of NPA issues coming from someone who as standard procedure berates, belittles and maliciously attacks other editors on a rather personal basis for rather trivial violations of his expectations ("Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?", "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", just from the past two days and I could provide hundreds more), I would hope that Nightscream would be better able to recognize legitimate criticism of improper removal of sourced content. And I'm not the only person with these concerns with Nightscream and his editing practices. Take a look at User_talk:Nightscream#Dan Brown, where one of many editors complains on his talk page about unjustifiable removal of what he defines as "Original Research", and see User_talk:Nightscream#Your behavior at Talk:A Scause for Applause, SPI for strong criticism of his attacks on other editors. Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oyi, this fight again (not you two, but lots of others have gone down this same road). In my experience it is a good idea to remove only material you can't easily confirm. If we deleted every unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, we'd have about 10% of the content we have right now. The "challenged or likely to be challenged" part is the key. And you did yourself no favor by referring to a reliable source as not being reliable and deleting material on that basis. That said, if you do feel the material has an issue, you are 100% correct to remove it. And Alan needs to AGF on that. But did you seriously have doubts about material in the press release? If not, why did you remove it? I can see why Alan would get frustrated, but I also understand why you are. If you showed a bit more care and Alan had a bit more patience, things would go a lot smoother... Hobit (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Hobit's points are well taken and I do want to apologize to Nightscream for my snarky remark; Frustration may have been an acceptable rationalization at the time but it isn't an appropriate justification. Nightscream and I are inevitably going to overlap on editing a significant number of articles and I hope that we can find a more effective way to work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia rather than trying to score points. I do appreciate that Nightscream will lean far more towards removal of unsourced content added to these and other articles, but I am more than willing to work in a partnership in which Nightscream tags (rather than removes) and discusses legitimately questionable unsourced / poorly sourced content, while I will be happy to reference sourceable content and to remove content that is irredeemably unsourceable based on my attempts to find decent references. I thought that we had been heading in a more productive direction in recent months since our earlier confrontations and I hope that this "incident" can lead to mutual agreement on a path to work together in reasonably harmonious fashion rather than to escalate a needless conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you have a beer some time, or if that's not practical have a chat offline. It is well worth investing time in getting to know and like people you will meet often, especially if you are likely to disagree much of the time. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion after un-archiving

I apologize for not having responded earlier before the discussion was archived. The miniscule amount of time we are given before bots archive is astounding. I also apologize for the length of this post, but this problem has being going on for years, and hope that if you truly care about improving this project, that you read it carefully.

It does not matter what Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear about, nor does it matter whether I had doubts about the source. If Alan or Hobit want to have a discussion on WP:V, or on my criticism of problem editors or one-off IP editors who can’t write a coherent sentence, then they are free to engage me in a discussion on that topic, provided they do so in good faith and with intellectual honesty and decency. But those are separate discussions.

This discussion is about one thing and one thing alone: Alan’s long-time habit of attacking his critics and those he disagrees with in his edit summaries and elsewhere (including in this very discussion), lying about the editing record, and smearing those he disagrees with by any means necessary, including bringing up past discussions with other editors that do not directly bear any relevance to the one at hand.

First, he compounds his earlier attack on me with similar comments here, when he claims, rather inanely, that I am “upset” and “bothered deeply” when sources are added to articles, when that is the precise sort of thing that I want to see occur in articles. The fact of the matter is, I remove unsourced information and original research from Wikipedia every day, and when I do so, I do so rather dispassionately. My removal of the content from the Red Bank article was no less dispassionate, and not motivated by any “malice”, nor does Alan have any basis for arguing otherwise. (Admittedly I have been more critical of editors who exhibit ignorance of grade school writing skills, and while I do criticize this, I don’t make false accusations or claim to know their emotional state.) Note that Alan not only tries to minimize the seriousness of his earlier comment by euphemistically calling it “snarky” (it wasn’t, it was a direct violation of AGF and NPA, and was far more malicious, ironically, than any content removal by me) but that in referring to his “comment” in the singular, he is indicating that he is not also including his comments in this discussion in his “apology”. (Indeed, why would he, when such behavior is his m.o. during ANI discussions?)

Second, he outright lies about the editing record, including his own edits and mine (not the first time he has done this).

He claims, “Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification.” Alan did not offer any “explanation”. What he did do was simply refer, in passing, to the material as being “sourced” in the edit summary in which he restored all the information, including the portion which was not sourced. In the first place, the mere fact that he asserts something (or even “explains” it) to be true does not make it true. In point of fact, his initial revert did not include any addition of sources; he just reverted my edit. You don’t have to believe me. Just go to the article’s edit history, and compare the version before my removal of the material and after he restored it. If he added more sources to the article, they’d show up in the diff, wouldn’t they? But in fact, they don’t. None of the changes he made included adding more sources. And by reverting my edit, he re-added the unsourced material: Namely, the mention of "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". He eventually made another edit in which he added yet another source, one that did mention Garmany and Broad Street, which I did not revert.

He lied when he claimed that I “blindly remove content”. I think I’ve demonstrated here that I examined both the content and the sources that were cited in order to determine which bits of information were supported by those sources and which weren’t, so unless he is using a definition of “blind” that I’m ignorant of, I think that falsifies this claim fairly clearly. Alan, unfortunately, likes to reuse certain stock tactics and accusations, and one of them is to repeatedly accuse other editors of “blind” reverts. Don’t believe me? Check out this ANI discussion to see how often the word “blind” shows up on his messages. Hell, just count how many times it shows up in his very first message in that discussion. You could practically create a drinking game out of it. (The other editor targeted, User:AdjustShift, denied Alan’s accusation.) Since Alan knows that I read the sources, and that I found that they did not contain some of the material in the passage, this illustrates how he likes to toss accusations around in knee-jerk, indiscriminate fashion, without even giving any thought to what he’s saying.

Third, Alan tries to smear his accusers or opponents by bringing up extraneous past conflicts in which his accusers have been embroiled, apparently in the belief that merely having been involved in numerous conflicts somehow discredits the accuser and falsifies the accusation. This is false. Any editor who has done heavy editing over the course of many years is going to find himself involved in numerous conflicts, especially if he or she is an admin enforcing policy. Bringing up past problems is certainly legitimate if it is directly relevant to the matter at hand, but Alan does not recognize this as a criterion, since he chooses any ol’ editor at random who has had “concerns with my editing practices”. If you want to falsify Accusation X that has been leveled against you, then do it. But bringing up Other Accusation Y against your accuser does not do this. It’s simply employment of the Tu Quoque fallacy. If Alan, or anyone else, wants to start a discussion here about my conduct, then let them. But such a discussion would be separate from this one.

This problem isn’t new

This would not be that big a problem if these behaviors were new. But they’re not. Alan has been troubling the editing community here at least six years, and when one looks through the numerous times he’s been reported here at ANI, ArbCom, etc., one sees an unfortunate pattern. Here are some examples from that pattern:

In this September 2007 ANI discussion, an editor accused Alan of using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The ANI participant who gave the most responses in that discussion, Persian Poet Gal, agreed that Alan was guilty of this, while two other editors, User:Fram and User:Wikipediatrix, observed that this was not a new problem with Alan.

Alan was the subject of a 2007-2008 RfC in which entire lists were compiled showing his personal attacks, AGF violations, questionable summaries, failure to acknowledge his violations and canvassing.

In 2008, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan for his incivility, personal attacks, violations of AGF, etc.

In this February 2010 ANI discussion, three editors, User:postdlf, User:Good Olfactory and User:Ncmvocalist observe Alan's problem with incivility, failure to adhere to AGF, personal attacks, making his accusers the subject of attacks, and stonewalling. User:Eusebeus concurs with this at a related Wikiquette Assistance discussion that same month.

During a September 2007 ANI discussion, Eusebeus pointed to a number of recurring tendencies on Alan’s part, and I’m quoting Eusebeus here:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.

Clearly, this is an ongoing problem with Alan, for which he has previously been seriously disciplined, so it’s unfortunate that once again, those at ANI have refused to take decisive action, as seen by Hobit’s response, in which he talks solely about WP:V, completely failing to address or even acknowledge the problem of Alan’s serial behavior, and Guy’s inane suggestion that we have a beer or chat offline. It reminds me the bit in the comedy show Bill Cosby: Himself, in which one of Cosby’s children steals a toy from a sibling, leading to a fight that awakens Cosby from sleep, and when Cosby smacks both children equally, and the indignant sibling complains that he/she was struck even though he/she was in the right, Cosby responds, “We don’t care about justice! We just want QUIET!” That’s what you guys are doing. (A pity that Lukeno94, who stated that Alan was out of line, but made no response following Alan’s.)

Seriously, why do you people participate here on ANI if you’re so incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and simply informing policy violators in no uncertain terms that their disruptive behaviors must cease?

Summary and Conclusion: An Offer for a Resolution

This must stop. Now. Those of you hold yourselves up in a position of authority here, capable of addressing problems here at ANI need to inform Alan, in no uncertain terms, of the following:

• That his viewpoint of WP:V, or any guideline, does not empower him to attack another editor with false accusations, or fabricate imagined emotional states or motivations, and that such behavior should not be minimized with euphemistic labeling like “snarky”.

• That he has lied about his and others’ editing records, and that this behavior is unacceptable, and must cease.

• That when he is accused of wrongdoing, his obligation is to falsify the accusation, and not to respond with ad hominem attacks directed to his accusers, engaging in the Tu Quoque fallacy, or any other type of fallacy.

These resolutions must also be enforced, so that if Alan continues to violate them, that his editing may be revoked. If he does not respond positively to these instructions, then he needs to have his editing privileges taken away from him. Should you refuse to revoke his privileges, or even pursue this matter further, I will be forced to go to the Arbitration Committee to report Alan there, and pursue more a more decisive resolution. (Eventually, I will also be calling for administrator reviews of those of you who have aided and sheltered Alan by refusing to take action to stop his serial abuse, both in regards to this discussion and previous ANI discussions involving Alan, such as the one last July.)

Keep in mind that ArbCom is not ANI. Those at ArbCom tend to get things done. The last time Alan was brought before them, back in 2007, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan, and since Alan has filled the intervening six years with more of the same violations that led to that restriction in the first place, it would not looking good for him. I will contact the other participants in those RfCs and ANIs to comment. And believe me, smearing his accusers will not improve his chances of coming out of any ArbCom investigation unscathed.

Keep in mind also that the last time I spearheaded an ArbCom intervention regarding a serial policy violator who had been disrupting the site for several years, that policy violator, User:Asgardian, was banned from Wikipedia for a year, and eventually indefinitely.

Alan, I want you to know that this is not a threat. It’s simply a statement of my intention. I am no longer going to allow you to attack others or engage in willfully deceitful behavior. I would far prefer not to go to ArbCom, both because you are capable of being a good editor when you want to be, and also because of the amount of time and work that would go into producing an ArbCom case. Although I don’t harbor tremendous hopes that you’ll change at this point, I feel I’m obligated to give you a chance. The three behaviors I have summarized above have been established by virtue of evidence and reason. You can freely acknowledge, without euphemism, logical fallacy or rhetoric, that you have committed those violations repeatedly, acknowledge that this is unacceptable, and that you will categorically cease doing so immediately. In return, I will not pursue this matter further, nor reference it in the future (provided that it does not become necessary in light of a repeat of the same behavior). If you do not do this, and the ANI admins refuse to hold you accountable, I will go to ArbCom. And I don’t think the chances that you will come out of that without a severe blow to your editing privileges are that great.

Please think it over, and let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I want to look at this (as you asked me to again), but bloody hell, that is waaaaaaaaaaaay too much writing. The chances of anyone reading that page of text is very low, I'm afraid. WP:TLDR does apply, although if I get time, I may attempt to read it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, frankly I'm a bit put off by the vague threats of "calling for administrator reviews of those of you who have aided and sheltered Alan by refusing to take action to stop his serial abuse, both in regards to this discussion and previous ANI discussions involving Alan, such as the one last July." First, as I assume you know, administrators "are never required to use their tools" (WP:ADMIN). Second, who are "those of you"? Finally, your language sounds like your treating these unnamed admins as accomplices in a criminal proceeding. This kind of threat certainly doesn't make me disposed to look at your allegations against Alan (of which I know nothing).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any threats. But the manner in which those at ANI have time and again proven themselves ineffectual not only at dealing with serial policy violators, but in being able to form coherent logic, is what creates the cracks in the system that people like Asgardian and Alan have exploited. User:Unscintillating's ridiculous comment below is prime example. There has to be a better way to address problem editors like them without having to go to ArbCom every time. Nightscream (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I believe my comments would improve your communication with the community, yet you've rejected my input from possible consideration.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A few (much briefer) thoughts and suggestions

ANI is intended to deal with incidents and to do so in a timely fashion, while they are occurring. Nightscream raised an issue regarding his removal of sourced content from the article for Red Bank, New Jersey. Yet after I and other editors addressed the issue and clarified that Nightscream's improper removal of sourced content is the more relevant issue, Nightscream disappeared and refused to discuss this problem. A week later, Nightscream reappears with a legal brief that the U.S. Supreme Court would toss out as too long and incoherent, discussing issues that may or may not have occurred seven or more years ago. Whatever this is, based on what I could gather from his screed, this is not an incident. Nightscream can productively respond to my suggestions to settle this issue one of two ways. He can stop removing sourced content, start attempting to add sources or tag for them as required by WP:V, stop attacking other editors for violating his own manufactured policies, stop tendentiously wikilawyering, stop making personal attacks (see repeated claims of "lying" above) and start trying to build an encyclopedia. Alternatively, I encourage Nightscream to follow through on his threats to take this to Arbcom, where this will go nowhere. Either alternative makes infinitely more sense than addressing an imagined incident where Nightscream has ignored a rather clear and rational offer to settle his dispute in a useful manner. Guy's suggestion makes even more sense now; we should either have a beer together and settle this or all of us should just start drinking. Heavily. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream raised an issue regarding his removal of sourced content... No, I raised the issue of your personal attacks upon another editor. The fact that you continue to rationalize this behavior with your views of WP:V (further illustrating the insincerity of your supposed "apology" above), would seem to confirm that you are beyond hope, as does your rather self-serving characterization of my "disappearing". No one "disappeared". I simply don't have time to compose posts that require the depth of the one above on any given day, a point I explained above, which you have ignored.

ArbCom it is, then. Nightscream (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn has always seemed to em to take Wikipedia issues very personally, and to be heavily emotionally vested in certain content. I am not sure if ArbCom will help, as he does not seem to me to display a talent for self-examination and therefore may be more radicalised by such a confrontational process, but I could be wrong about both these thoughts as they are based on memory of long past and I have not dealt with Alansohn for some time as far as I can recall. I hold by my view that it would be better to spend some time understanding each other's perspective, but again that may be wrong. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Inability on the part of an editor for self-examine is precisely one of the traits that one sees in problem editors who are reported at ArbCom, User:Asgardian having been one prominent example, and yet Asgardian was banned from Wikipedia. The editor may not be able to examine their own behavior, but ArbCom certainly can, and does, which is why we have them. If ArbCom resolutions were predicated on the accused examining themselves objectively, then ArbCom would be ineffectual and pointless entirely. By way of analogy, it's like saying of an accused criminal, "We can't take him to trial! He's a criminal! He'll just lie!". :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you do take this to Arbcom, I suggest that you pay attention to Alansohn's proposal that you "...stop making personal attacks (see repeated claims of "lying" above)...".  Speaking for myself, I stopped reading your comments when I got to the part about lying.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the fifth item listed under WP:NOTHERE. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at WP:NOTHERE.  You seem to think that making unprovable accusations somehow reflects negatively on the person you accuse.  I recall no previous contact with you, but I doubt that your language abilities are limited to making unprovable accusations.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

One more time: The accusations are not "unprovable". They are illustrated by evidence and reason. Just because you don't feel like reading the arguments and responding to them does not make them unprovable. Why don't you try reading some of the examples I offer? Why not look at the way I ask Alan simple questions about and how he stonewalls on answering them? In what way are these "unprovable"? Intent can indeed be inferred by virtue of evidence. Nightscream (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that you are right that intent can be inferred by virtue of evidence.  I expect that that is a skill that judges have, but I'm not a judge, and intent is not proof.  People are so complicated that they can say things that are not objectively true and be unaware of what other people are hearing.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chronic personal attacks by admin User:Nightscream

As already discussed last August at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759, Nightscream has a chronic problem of making rather vile personal attacks against those editors he disagrees with. In this personal attack on my talk page, Nightscream's attacks and incivility begin with "It's clear that you're lying about your edits" and ends by telling me "please don't engage in such mendacity". In the days before filing this ANI, Nightscream's incivility and personal attacks on other editors include such classics as "Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?" and "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it." I believe that Nightscream was entirely unjustified to remove sourced content, while he believes the exact opposite, that I was wrong to add sourced material. I disagree with him and I accept that difference of opinion, but I have no idea how Nightscream had concluded then or now that that by disagreeing that I'm lying. I have not only apologized for any offense Nightscream may have perceived, I have suggested a rather simple solution to deal with the actual issue, which is that Nightscream tag uncontroversial material that he believes requires sources rather than blindly remove it, and allow me and other editors to add the sources that he refuses to add and that most of the time can be found with utterly trivial effort. Nightscream has ignored this offer and insists that he will not only bring this non-event to Arbcom, but will extend his battle to punish each and every admin who has quite reasonably refused to take action here ("I will also be calling for administrator reviews of those of you who have aided and sheltered Alan"), a threat that appears to cover every single Wikipedia administrator.

For a real bitter taste of Nightscream's venomous personal attacks and incivility, see this talk page conversation over the past few days, where in a single conversation Nightscream berates an editor for his "persistent ignorance of policy", his "arrogant, narcissistic belief that being admonished for violating policy or poor article writing skills is somehow unbecoming an admin" which "says volumes about both your maturity, and your inability to grasp a single point" tells him that he "falsely accused me at least twice" (again with the claims of lying), ending by saying that "your composure on this project has been abysmal" and was "deliberately tendentious", before signing off with "Now stop bothering me. I've wasted enough time with people like you."

More obviously than ever, the problem here is Nightscream, an admin who simply fails to understand that the goal of Wikipedia is not to fight battles to force other editors to accede to his demands or to wage war to exact punishment for failure to do so, but to work together to build an encyclopedia. With Nightscream only becoming more enraged and unwilling to settle this over a beer, drinking heavily seems to be the only viable option on tap. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved editor, I think both of you should take the matter to ArbCom. You have leveled some serious allegations of conduct unbecoming of an admin, but ANI (or any community process) cannot remove his sysop bit even if they are all true. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of deliberate wrongdoing, and providing evidence to that effect, is not a "personal attack", Alan. If it were, then accusing someone of launching a "personal attack" would therefore be a "personal attack" itself, don't you think? "Personal attack" seems to be your euphemism for "anything unfavorable to me that I don't want to hear". The fact is that you did indeed lie about Red Bank matter, and I provided evidence above of this above. (See the two paragraphs below the phrase "Second, he outright lies about the editing record" .) See also the fifth item under WP:NOTHERE. Engaging in deceit in order to manipulate the system is obviously a serious problem behavior, and when one provides evidence in good faith of an editor engaging in it, it is not a "personal attack", any more than accusing an editor of vandalism, sock puppetry, OWN behavior, incivility, etc. That you characterize it as such, and point to other conflicts with editors whose questionable behavior I also illustrated with the necessary diffs and other links is simply another iteration of your narcissistic inability to address the charge directly and falsify it. Funny how reporting your behavior is a "personal attack", but engaging in ad hominem and tu quoque attacks isn't. But thanks for backing up my observations by engaging in the exact same behavior I described above. Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream is doing an excellent job of demonstrating his problem. I believe that the issue here is a dispute about interpreting policy on reliable and verifiable sources, an issue that can be readily resolved with some cooperation by Nightscream, as I have suggested above. Nightscream believes that the problem is that I'm lying. Just five words into his explanation above, Nightscream insists that he is addressing my "deliberate wrongdoing", implying that I am not only wrong but that I am doing so on a purposeful basis despite knowing that I am wrong. How does he know this? The next claim begins "The fact is that you did indeed lie about Red Bank matter", again with the claims of lying, with a further reference to a repeated statement that I engage in "outright lies about the editing record". Next sentence begins with claims that I am "Engaging in deceit in order to manipulate the system", more claims of lying. He has provided no evidence of any violation of Wikipedia policy, refused to consider dropping your axe and persisted in making claims of lying; These claims are the very definition of personal attacks. And it's not new. this edit talks about my being "dishonest", along with claims of "compounding your previous mendacity" (a fancy word for "lying", see here) more than two years ago. While I do hope that this malignant attitude can be addressed here, I look forward to your taking this to Arbcom, where we will see his pattern of persistent personal attacks, ongoing conduct unbecoming of an admin, addressed once and for all. No administrator is entitled to claim that another editor is "lying", "mendacious", "dishonest" or involved in "deceit" or "deliberate wrongdoing", and this cancerous behavior by Nightscream must be eliminated, sooner rather than later, to prevent further harm to Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A lie is a lie is a lie. If a user clearly lies it's not a WP:PA to comment on it. Nightscream could you provide clear diffs of instances where Alan supposedly lied so as to evaluate the seriousness of the accusations? Also, this will allow Alan to present his reasoning as to why he was not lying. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gaba, you're probably the first person aside from myself to say this on ANI.

However, you're wrong when you indicate that the one thing keeping Alan from presenting counter-reasoning to falsify the accusation is that evidence needs to be presented to illustrate, because in fact, I always present such evidence, and did so in this discussion and prior ones. Alan does not falsify accusations because he can't, and of course cannot admit this, and therefore relies on attacking his accusers with the ad hominem and to quoque fallacies.

Just look at his silly little rant that "no administrator is entitled to claim that another editor is lying", an inane idea that has no basis in logic or reason. Of course we can accuse editors of wrongdoing--provided that we present some evidence or reasoning that leans in the direction of the accusation, and to the exclusion of other explanations. Without such evidence/reasoning, such an accusation would constitute jumping to conclusions, and that would indeed be a violation of AGF and NPA. If you dont' believe me that Alan will not directly address reasoning or evidence, Gaba, observe:

Alan, I have a question: If editors are entitled, and even obligated, to accuse other editors of vandalism, sock puppetry, or violating any other policy, guideline or consensus (albeit with the proviso that they present evidence for this), and some of these acts are inherently deliberate, like vandalism or sock puppetry, then why why would we not be able to accuse editors of lying or deliberate wrongdoing? Isn't deception a component of some of these behaviors, especially when it is perpetrated by on an ongoing basis by editors with a history of engaging in such behaviors? Doesn't the fifth item listed under WP:NOTHERE mention this? Why are you entitled to accuse me of "personal attacks", if others are not entitled to point out the instances in which you have been dishonest, or used manipulate, self-serving wording, or been intellectual dishonest in your use of logical fallacies meant to target your accusers?

Don't expect Alan to respond directly, Gaba. :-)

However, if the current discussion has grown too unwieldly in its size to find the evidence, Gaba, you can see where I summarized two instances of Alan's deception in the two paragraphs above under the line "Second, he outright lies about the editing record, including his own edits and mine (not the first time he has done this)." Search for that statement, or a portion of it, and you'll see it.

Another instance was last July, also in regards to the Red Bank article. I provided by reasoning/evidence on his talk page, but rather than falsify it, or even acknowledge it, he tried reporting me to ANI. I presented my arguments here as well, but as usually occurs on ANI, those who participated in the discussion failed to the make the point that you and I obseved, Gaba. One editor, User:Jorgath, even made the hilarious statement that "Alan was not lying, but was incorrect and did not realize it.", but offered no elaboration on how he knew this. (To get an idea of how inane this was, it concerned a blind revert Alan did of all my edits to the Red Bank article, which is proven by simply comparing the version before my edit and the version after his revert. He subsequently claimed on my talk page that it was not blind, because he made an effort to retain aspects of my edits, stating that only "some" of me rewording may have gotten lost, that he tried to "re-use as much of" my effort as possible, that he "tried his best to match my photo placements", to "address the concerns I had raised", and that he was "not perfect in his efforts to retain my rewording". The fact that he simply went back to the version before my edits and restored that (while moving one photo that I had nothing to do with), makes it clear that his description of his efforts to precisely create a compromise version was false. How Jorgath knew that he was merely "incorrect and did not realize it", I don't know.

It's amazing how Nightscream "knows" that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. Nightscream on multiple occasions blindly removed sourced content from the article for Red Bank, New Jersey with the ridiculous claim that a press release from Tiffany and Co., an S&P 500 firm, about its plans to open a store in Red Bank was not a reliable source. Not a single editor has supported that claim. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He used his idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS to insist that my restoration of that material with additional sources was lying. This is completely and totally baseless. Nightscream seems to believe the "Big Bullshit" theory, in which if you make an accusation often enough that it will stick. He has failed to do anything other than make repeated and unsupported claims of lying. As requested by Gaba, "Nightscream could you provide clear diffs of instances where Alan supposedly lied so as to evaluate the seriousness of the accusations?" Put up or shut up. I offered to settle his dispute and improve Wikipedia and its sources, but Nightscream refuses. I provide a litany of Nightscream's malicious personal attacks over the past week and Nightscream points to events that may or may not have occurred seven years ago. I offer a rational explanation that this disagreement is based on interpretations of policy and Nightscream insists that he is totally and completely in the right and I am lying left and right. This insidious insistence that anyone who Nightscream despises must be lying is an attitude that is inherently disruptive and destructive to Wikipedia and I'm sure he thinks otherwise. But then, again maybe he's lying. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing how Nightscream "knows" that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. I do not, and never said nor implied that dishonesty is denoted by mere disagreement. Dishonesty, like any other empirical idea or claim, is established by virtue of evidence and reason. I provided instances in which statements of this type by you is thus established. Here are some ones you keep repeating, along with some new ones:

Nightscream on multiple occasions blindly removed sourced content from the article for Red Bank, New Jersey with the ridiculous claim that a press release from Tiffany and Co., an S&P 500 firm, about its plans to open a store in Red Bank was not a reliable source. Not a single editor has supported that claim. Zero. Zilch. Nada. First, your statement that not a single editor has supported this claim implies that other editors weighed in on the matter. No other editor was involved in that dispute in the article. Even in this discussion, only one other editor has even mentioned the press release matter, and only to ask me what my thoughts were on it. No one has supported either of our positions on the matter. So when you state that "not a single editor has supported" my claim, do you deny that this implies that there has been discussion on the matter in which many other editors chimed in? Do you deny that an uninvolved editor happening upon this discussion may come away with that impression? How is this not a deceptive statement by omission and/or implication?

Second, what exactly is your definition of the word "blind" here? that I supposedly didn't look closely at the passage, or at the source, and read that source to see what it supported? Even if we agreed for the sake of argument that a press release would not violate WP:PSTS, WP:NOTADVERT, et al., a number of data points in the passage were not found in that source, and you ultimately left even them out when you restored that passage: the mentions of Broad Street, Garmany and Urban Outfitters. So even if we supposed that press releases were kosher, that passage contained a mixture of sourced and unsourced material. Why do you keep referring to the material as merely "sourced"? If this is not another lie of omission, then what is it?

He used his idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:RS to insist that my restoration of that material with additional sources was lying. I did no such thing. I have been specific as to which statements by you were clearly false, and deliberately so, and I never stated that mere "restoration" of the passage was "lying". How can restoration of material be "lying", when it does not constitute a statement? Simple. It can't. This is just more spin by you, because you can't address specific questions and statements by explaining how they're not statements of deliberate deception.

As requested by Gaba, "Nightscream could you provide clear diffs of instances where Alan supposedly lied so as to evaluate the seriousness of the accusations?" Put up or shut up. I have, repeatedly. The two paragraphs below the phrase "Second, he outright lies about the editing record" detail two examples, and I have pointed out more in this message from your last message just above. You just keep chickening out of responding to them.

I offered to settle his dispute and improve Wikipedia and its sources, but Nightscream refuses. You only "offer to settle disputes" if you can do so on your own terms, which does not include answering questions directly that are put to you about your behavior. I've asked you a number of simple questions in this discussion, yet you refuse to answer them. You made the statement no admin should be allowed to accuse another editor of lying, and I asked you a critical question about that statement, because it does not appear to be a tenable idea. Why not answer it, in order to elaborate to the community here how it actually is tenable? Even Gaba didn't buy your whiny, self-serving notion that no one can ever be accused of deception, despite the fact that such behavior is obviously a problem in a collaborative project, and is obviously an actual phenomenon that Wikipedia itself recognizes. So why not follow up by elaborating a bit on this idea of yours, to show how it actually makes sense?

I provide a litany of Nightscream's malicious personal attacks over the past week... Two points:

First, the statements by me you quoted were not "personal attacks". They were criticisms, and I stand by them. User:Crtew indeed violated or experienced ignorance of a number of policies, guidelines and other principles during our conflict on the article of 9/11 victim Bill Biggart, and this is evident on that article's talk page. I even listed all the policies and guidelines he violated or was ignorant of, and he never addressed this, even to claim that it was wrong. He spent some time trying to add material to the Biggart article that wasn't about Biggart, due to an agenda he admitted he had, in violation of WP:MEMORIAL, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, and wanted to add this material in order to promote an idea of his own interpretation, in violation of WP:NOR. He also cast personal aspersions upon me, and during the course of his editing of the article insisting on adding a list of other 9/11 victims to the article that had nothing to do with Biggart. When I responded that this was not justified, explaining that these were not even related in the way that Crtew suggested, including one I mentioned as an example, Thomas Pecorelli, Crtew responded by asking me why I brought up Pecorelli, even though my prior message made the context of that clear. My criticisms of him were valid. Just because criticism is harsh does not mean that it constitutes an "attack". As for the "bullshit" comment, that was an uncharacteristic bit of profanity on my part, but it was not directed any any editor. Hard to have a personal attack without another editor being attacked, don't you think? Who was the editor in question?

Second, are they "personal attacks" when I make such statements, but not when Alan does? Above, Alan stated that being accused of lying or other deceitful behavior is a personal attack, even though WP:NOTHERE discusses how it's a problem. But nowhere in the statements I made to Crtew that Alan quoted did I accuse Crtew of lying. So what exactly is a "personal attack" to you, Alan? If criticism of another editor's behavior, or accusations leveled at another editor are "personal attacks", then does that mean that you've been attacking me throughout this discussion? When is criticism a personal attack, and when is it not? Why are your statements merely "snarky remarks", but my criticisms "personal attacks"? Why are you allowed to accuse others of wrongdoing, but others not allowed to accuse you of this without such accusations being labeled "attacks"? Can you explain this?

...and Nightscream points to events that may or may not have occurred seven years ago. Well in the first place, those discussions did indeed happen, so I'm not sure what you mean by "may or may not have occurred".

In the second place, anyone who reads the material I wrote above under the heading "This problem isn’t new" can see that the examples I linked to included those from 2007, 2008 and 2010, and elsewhere, I have mentioned the incident from last July. Once again, you do not reference my statements accurately. Nightscream (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never lied on Wikipedia let alone in any interaction with Nightscream. Never, not under any circumstances. The examples Nightscream purports to use as part of a pattern are just repetitions of the same baseless claims. I can call Nightscream a child molester a thousand times, but that doesn't make it so, and providing examples of times where Nightscream has been called a child molester doesn't provide evidence that he is in fact a child molestor. On the other hand, the ample examples I provide of Nightscream's vile personal attacks come directly from him, not only from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, but on several occasions from the past week. I could provide 100 examples of his abusive personal attacks and threats, and there is no argument too trivial for Nightscream to call another editor "dishonest", "mendacious", "lying" or any of a variety of similar personal attacks, a claim he has made in interactions over the past several years with dozens of other editors. Such classics of Nightscream's crude incivility and personal attacks include "Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?" and "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", all of which have spewed out straight from the horse's mouth (if that is the correct orifice) this week aand it requires a complete lack of self-awareness to insist that such abusive incivility and personal attacks are mere "criticism". The underlying issue is Nightscream's persistent problems with removal of content and I have offered an easy solution to deal with the issue. Rather than deal with the problem constructively, Nightscream has turned this into a battle claiming that I am a liar, threatening to take this imagined thought crime to Arbcom and promising to start reviews for every Wikipedia admin who refuses to do his bidding. Nightscream's efforts to escalate a battle, his refusal to accept reasonable efforts to resolve his problem and his persistent use of offensive personal attacks and crude profanity to attack anyone with the temerity to stand up to his abusive actions are more than sufficient to justify desysopping. Nightscream is the worst kind of bully, one who makes malicious and baseless personal attacks as a means of exacting revenge on those who disagree with him. User:Crtew is actively facing Nightscream's abuse, as I am, and this malignant pattern of abuse must be ended immediately by Nightscream. Alansohn (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban for Alansohn and Nightscream?

Is it possible to just impose a total interaction ban on these two? No talking to or about each other anywhere on Wikipedia at all, with the sole exception of filing an ArbCom case to deal with what looks like an intractable problem. — The Potato Hose 02:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest an additional interaction ban for Nightscream and all other Wikipedia editors. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Tim Berners-Lee, birthdate, and night screams from four years ago, for a bizarrely similar story of removal of content based on a claim of missing sources, prefectly valid reliable sources that were already present in the article, Nightscream's ignorance of simple requests to just add the easily available sources on his own, all capped off by another of Nightscream's bloviating rants that features his pointing his finger at another user and insisting "Thus the only one not being honest is you". Apparently every other Wikipedia editor is a mendacious, dishonest, insincere liar who just won't tell the truth no matter how hard Nightscream yells at them. This bullying behavior by Nightscream, an administrator who upholds the lowest possible standards in Wikipedia for personal attacks, has persisted for years. Why should I be the only one to benefit from an interaction ban? Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Nightscream, but you are making him look good. It there is a simple problem with sources, then stick to that problem, don't try and distract the discussion with your armchair psychoanalysis. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream's determination that I and dozens of other editors have all been lying for years is based on armchair polygraphy? I tried to base this discussion on reliability of sources, as part of a rather rational offer to settle this dispute, but Nightscream refuses to address the subject. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but you've lost sight of the golden ring. If you did base your discussion on just the sources, then you will simply need to leave it at that, but that's not what you did. You went on and on about how Nightscream did this and did that, destroying your own case against him and making you look like a raving lunatic. Be brief, stay on point, and let others weigh in. You failed to do that. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is seven years old, while this is a redlink. Turn that link blue or go to Arbcom, either way this whatever it is between the two of you is only disruptive. End the disruption by walking away, starting an RfC/U, or filing an Arbcom case. — The Potato Hose 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to base this discussion on reliability of sources... This discussion isn't about reliability of sources. What part of that are you not getting? The topic of this discussion is indicated by the main heading at the very top of the discussion, and the post by me that started it. The issue regarding the article content has been resolved, because you found another source for some of the material, and left the remainder not supported by that source out of the article. It's not even enough for you to opine that this discussion is about source reliability. No, you have to claim that somehow this was the topic of this discussion as I initiated it, when you stated above in your 16:40, 24 May message "Nightscream raised an issue regarding his removal of sourced content." Again, please explain this to me. Nightscream (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You removed sourced content from the article form Red Bank and I restored it. That's where this dispute started, but you have tried to turn this into the blatantly bogus claim that I have been lying, a claim that I have repeatedly rebutted. I am as much as liar as you are a child molester. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban as proposer. — The Potato Hose 03:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as victim. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I dislike involuntary interaction bans that aren't needed, and Alansohn has not made a good case for banning Nightscream from interacting with him; if anything, Alansohn has unintentionally strengthened Nightscream's case against him. If Nightscream agrees to this ban, however, then feel free to disregard this oppose. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Since Alan and I both regularly edit articles related to Hudson County, including articles of cities/towns in that county, as well as others, like Red Bank, how would that work? Nightscream (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand that Nightscream strike what he said about me. I was just notified of his personal attacks against me. My solution, different from the initiator of this charge, was to simply avoid any contact with him. But he should not be able to disparage other Wikipedians -- (added: who are unrelated to this ANI). If not, you'll soon see a fresh entry here, and I have a lot to say about my doubts about Nightscream's behavior and his position as an admin. Crtew (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Nightscream, as an admin, cannot vote against an ANI that is leveled against him. He should immediately remove his vote. Crtew (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure he can, and when it comes to interaction bans, named users should be encouraged to weigh in with their thoughts, of course, their input won't be taken as seriously as other users. Voluntary interaction bans can sometimes work, which is why it is important for users to speak up. Unfortunately, involuntary interaction bans are often the sign of a frustrated community that isn't all that interested in solving the problem, which is why I rarely support them. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my demand that Nightscream strike his comments about me as it's a personal attack. Crtew (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Alansohn could also stop dragging me into this scuffle and strike his comments. I have nothing to do with their interaction. Crtew (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose IBANS cause more drama than they prevent. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As this is these users' first scuffle I'd say that an IBAN is overkill. Both editors need to cool down and perhaps a voluntary topic ban for a couple of weeks would serve everybody better. Both editors should try to adhere to WP:AGF a bit more and remember that there are instances that can help with a content discussion before turning to ANI: WP:3, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:DRN, WP:RfC. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus is using IPs

Although using IPs while still having a valid non-blocked account is okay, I am objecting User:Maunus's this act because of the reasons that i mention now. Maunus is now using IPs 68.9.182.96 and 128.148.231.12. He admits that here and at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.9.182.96/Archive. He was recently (17th May 2013) blocked for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. Previously in May 2011 while the user was admin, he had imposed a self-block for "preempting incivil behavior at multiple takpages". Block log. Now whether the blocks are self imposed or forced by other admins doesn't change the fact that this user makes personal attacks on other editors. As mentioned before, using IPs is valid. But using IPs thus wrongly attributes such personality-wise editing habits. The SPI can not take any action in this case. That's why i am here to note this point and get other admin's opinion and attention. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

so let me see, your argument is that because I have previously made personal attacks I should be exempt from the rule that allows editors to edit as IPs? Is that even an argument? 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought they had declared that they were doing thus, in a similar manner to what I had to do earlier this year? There are some situations where people might find it awkward to log in. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also said that it is acceptable. But edits done through IPs aren't attributed to the right person. I am not caring about edit counts. I wouldn't even care of any constructive edits if the user himself has opted for not using their account. But non-constructive edits, like may be vandalism, multiple votes and personal attacks, should be attributed to the right person. Such behavioural attributions are helpful. The duck test relies on such behavioural features. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the duck test is about. It is about determining whether two accounts who do not acknowledge they are used by the same editor are in fact operated by the same sockmaster. Since I have acknowledged that I am using those two IPs, and probably will use more of them since they are dynamic the duck test is entirely irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He cannot login in to his account as he has the enforcer enabled, as you linked to the SPI you must know that? He first posted from his place of work and then from another location later, he stated on the talk page that it was him, he has done nothing wrong here and this is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus in the guise of an IP puts a clarify tag here in the article they later revert me without giving any reason only to be reverted by another editor.Later they start to edit war over another section here most importantly they say that we should not revert without giving any edit summary [9] however if you look here they reverted me without any edit summary. The edit war continues where the IP/Maunus also crosses 3RR limit [10] and may be out of frustration they just blank the whole section [11]. All this while the IP user never informed that it was Maunus because if it was informed then they would have been blocked for such disruption. This was very clever tactic by Maunus. Recently Maunus was blocked for incivility and here he calls another editor a joker.-sarvajna (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He also explained on the talk page why he did it, he has not done anything wrong here and this is as already stated, pointless. Please explain what policies he has violated and maybe you will have something, right now all I see is, "this guy pissed me off". Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@DS: Committing to crime later on doesn't undo the crime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If Maunus did breach 3RR then that is a valid concern, although I'm not sure why it is brought here rather than taken to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did break 3rr because I was being reverted and warned for invalid reasons - the information I added was fully sourced. the reversals was not based on having read the actual material, and the rationales given were incorrect. And Ok, I got angry.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blanking a section without discussion, breach of civility by calling other editor a joker even after being blocked for incivility, breach of 3RR. Did he not indulge in vandalism? -sarvajna (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The section blanking was based on discussion. Darkness shines said that the sources were unreliable, which of course should mean that we dont use them. Calling someone who makes jokes a joker is not a personal attack.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sitush: I did not bring it here to get action on his 3RR. I brought it here to get admin's opinions of how rightful attribution of edits should be done. We are in a way collecting feathers here to make a full duck. And its just a coincidence that his all colours are brought forth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, all I'll say now is that the more times contributor behaviour relating to the Narendra Modi article is raised here (see above thread), the more likely it is that someone with a mop will decide it is time to do some general cleaning. I doubt very much that the cleaning would be restricted to a single contributor. But if you want to push it then I cannot stop you. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... if that ever happens and wrong people are sacked for no reason, we at least would now be able to make reasonable guess as to who could be behind it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Please, do tell me! - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it's not sockpuppetry is it unnecessarily disruption. "I can't log in because of the wikibreak enforcer" isn't a good reason -- if Maunus has changed their mind about taking a break they should get the enforcer removed and log in with their account. NE Ent 09:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He has to do no such thing, there are no rule saying you have to be logged in to edit, so I just logged out to do this. 212.183.128.186 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but why happens when you cause disruptions without logging in? to whom should I attribute that disruption to? -sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would note that although I agree that editing as an IP is fine, historically certain admins and members of the community in high positions feel otherwise. The primary reason I created this account was because when I was editing as an IP several editors used it as an excuse to say I was socking...and the community didn't debate that or indicate it wasn't ok to block me for editing as an IP. Now even in my RFA some said I was socking and pointed to those IP edits. So unless the member wants to be called a sockmaster they should edit using their account if they have one established. Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Im not an admin, but just to weigh in on the IP/user thing. The reason why it is discouraged is that for the average user there is little or no way to discern if an IP belongs to a user. This can obviously be used to to give undue weight to things said by editors who engage in this behaviour. Essentially, User:Foobar12345678 could edit as his IP, and back himself up in a discussion. If his internet connection does not use a static IP, then each time he reconnects, it will be yet another user. Obviously some users may not think this through, and may do it inadvertently, but there is little difference between this and actual socking. -- Nbound (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• On the enforcer - if you want to disable it, all you have to do is turn off JavaScript in your browser, then log in, and remove the enforcer script from your .js page. The enforcer doesn't actually block you from editing - it just lets you log in, and then automatically logs you out again, via JavaScript. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am kind of liking IP editing. I think I'll continue to do that and just leave my account behind. Thanks for the attention.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  If you're still editing as an IP while you have the enforcer enabled, I think it is a sign that you are well and truly addicted to Wikipedia, and that you should either just come back and use your account, or ask Dennis Brown for a self-requested block. I'd prefer the former, but it's up to you... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who accidentally stepped into this dispute while huggling yesterday, I will say that I found Maunus's multiple-IP editing disruptive. Not because he wasn't using his account, per se, but because a) he was using two IPs essentially at once (notice how the contribs of IP 128 and IP 68 cross within minutes of each other, making the same arguments, without identifying them as each other or himself until well into both the edit war and the talk page debate, after the article had been protected and he'd lost his advantage in reverting there); and b) he used that IP editing to get something resembling "extra chances" from, at least, me. As a naive admin not otherwise involved in the dispute, with no indication that I was dealing with not only an experienced editor but an ex-admin, I warned him about our BLP policy and then stuck around to try to explain it to what appeared to be a newbie who needed help understanding, rather than just blocking someone who was edit warring to insert a what looked to me like a pretty egregious BLP violation. Similarly, as an IP he got a warning and extra revert chances on 3RR that he wouldn't have gotten had it been known that he was not only the other IP, but also Maunus, who knows perfectly well about edit warring policy already.

  If Maunus wants to edit as an IP now rather than using his account, he's free to do that - but he needs to be up-front about using multiple IPs on different ranges in the same discussion, and the playing "dumb" about policy to avoid sanction needs to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My name is Maunus, with two u's. Read the sources and you will know why it was not a BLP violation. Block me for 3rr or more personal attacks or disruption if you wish, or give me a topic ban for any topic of your choosing, but PLEASE could we get some qualified admin attention to those pages already?68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there are two Us. Sorry for the misspellings; I've corrected them above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to place this diff here [12] .-sarvajna (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your diff and I raise you with this one[13]68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctantly, given the blatant edit-warring and general disruptive editing via IPs, I think there should be serious talk about sanctions against Maunus. Edits such as this are very much not ok in the first place, let alone something to edit-war back in or double down on, and his bizarre comment about DS being an admin, together with the responses to that on the IP talk page definitely create the impression of an effort to evade scrutiny. All of this is very much unbecoming of any editor, least of all an admin.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure you're very reluctant. I am not an admin btw.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

I actually am reluctant. Also, I forgot that you resigned the tools.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, then maybe it will be less bizarre for you to believe that I mistook Darness shines for an admin when he was not.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was responsible for the page protection of Narendra Modi; I then had a quick check back through the contributions of Maunus and his IP addresses, looking to see if he was using the IP accounts to edit whilst blocked or evade sanctions. I came across the last block ([14] - he was blocked for 48 hours at 03:04 17th May) and any edits after 03:04 on 19th May are perfectly acceptable. It wasn't until I went back and looked did I see one single edit [15] from 18th May 2013 from one of his self identified IP addresses. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Wikibreak enforcer thing, but I'm now more concerned about this edit in light of the entire ANI thread here, than I was when I initially came across it yesterday. I'm not sure what action if any to take, so I'll toss it over to the community here to see if they think it warrants attention. Nick (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not my edit. That IP is from my job, the anthropology department at the university where I work, where several people work with India related topics. The edit is adding a space. Not exactly my kind of edit.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

• I have done a bunch of stuff thats against the rules, and I will humbly and calmly accept any and all sanctions taken against me. But please can we have some attention to these articles and the editing behaviour of the particular editors I am mentioning. They are not breaking any redline rules, but they are a real threat to wikipedia. I would think much more so than I am, but that is up to you to decide.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

You have not produced a single source of comparable quality to any of the ones I have just presented, and you wouldnt recognize an "expert" (or a reliable source) if he jumped from behind a bush and bit you in the ass. You are the worst kind of threat to wikipedia: an administrator who will wilfully abuse and misrepresent our policies and lie and slander honest editors while doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
— User:68.9.182.96 13:57, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

This is 100% Maunus. Why no blocks yet, for Incivility perhaps if not anything else? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not deny having said that, and that it may be considered a personal attack. But it is accurate, and warranted based on the editor in questions own style of interaction, editing and argumentation. He has shown me no good faith and thus can expect none from me.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What I would really like

What I would really like is a lot of uninvolved admins and non-admin editors to take a look at the articles Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence and other pages related to Hindu-Nationalism and communal violence in Gujarat. They should pay special attention to the editing of a group of editors including User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Mrt3366, User:Dharmadhyaksha, User:Kondicherry, User:OrangesRyellow User:A.amitkumar (perhaps not, he only seems to have gotten involved yesterday) and administrator User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (reverts all edits from new editors to the article, even when reliably sourced and well formatted (often without edit summary), then proceeds to warn them om their talkpages). These editors, many of whom are SPAs relating to Hinduism, are working very hard to keep all criticism of Modi out of the article about him using every kind of spurious non-argument available, but usually just sheer force of numbers. There is a huge amount of behavioral issues for admins to sort out, walledgarden, opwnership, misrepresentation of sources, extreme pro-Modi bias. I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda. In short there is a lot of reasons as many administrators as possible should take a look at this article and the editing behavior there.

So why should there be critical information about Narendra Modi? Easy question. Because the overwhelming majority of sources about him are highly critical. He is described in literally dozens of reliable peer viewed sources as having been an "orchestrator" of the 2002 massacre against Muslims in Gujarat. He has been accused of personally intervening on the side of the mobs, even by people who are his supporters (they have been filmed praising him for it), he has been denied visas to USA and Britain under a law meant to target individuals who infringe on the religious freedom of others, he is almost without fail described as the most controversial politician in India, he has given his name to a brand of politics now called "Moditva" (mixing his name Modi and Hindutva, described by reliable sources as populist, virulently anti-muslim hindu nationalism combined with liberal economic policies). See this write up for a review of some scholarly sources about him, none of which are currently used in the article.

Right now the article doesn't even describe the fact that the BJP and RSS are Hindu nationalist organizations and gives no description of his politics. There is a section on his "personality" that builds entirely on news sources, all of which are highly critical of Modi. One would not realize that from reading the article though, because in the section they are used only to cherrypick minor positive details. For example a source that is criticizing or even ridiculing Modis poetry is used to source that "he writes poems in gujarati". A source that critiques him as being virulently chauvinist and Anti-Muslim is used to source that he is a vegetarian. And a source that says says that he is considered an autocrat by his opponents is used only to source that that his supporters see him as a Protector (which in fact is a misrepresentation of what the source says). Whenever a critical piece of information is entered (even the fact that he is a hindu-nationalist) the mentioned editors show up and remove it (often using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary, they then proceed directly to warn the editor who makes the edit), and then when a discussion starts they argue that the critical information is not notable (even when it appears in ), is not backed by reliable sources (even when the same sources are used by themselves to source other pieces of information) or that it is inaccurate (usually not backed by any evidence or supported by blog or news column sources). Then the editor who inserted the information gives up and leaves and everything is back to "normal". The result is that no other living politician with a comparable degree of contentiousness (having been publicly accused of aiding and abetting genocide, having been denied visa to several foreign countries, having been the object of Supreme Court Investigations, strong nationalist and fundamentalist viewpoints, being described having some degree of involvement in sectarian violence in almost every single reliable source that mentions him etc.) is being treated with a similar degree of reverence. Might it be because this particular politician is supported by a large and well paid staff of propagandists?

This is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. And I humbly ask for all of your help in coming to the article and assuring that we achieve an article that gives a critical but fair article about this highly controversial politician that represents all the available sources about him.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: As this big essay is about the article and not about the IP usage issue i have raised above, i am separating it. There is no need to nest this topic in the topic thats going on above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT mess with my formatting again.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A Big piece of crap... just because I raised a sockpuppet investigation against you... and for a discussion which you couldn't be civil enough and i put a NPA comment... LOL... Hey where are your buddy admin's and users. I dont have to explain myself but i will do so.. i reached the NM page through an edit i was doing on digvijay page which i reached due to some date related cleanup i am doing all across WP... (see year maintenance tag removal history by me in my contribs). And here i meet this bunch of edit warers and got into this mess of war between BJP and congress activists... though what you may say might be true about other editors... this seems true about you too... is some one paying you? Remember WP is filled with so many rules and quotes that every rule has a counter-rule that i can quote, so it is many times best to maintain your civility which i did and you did not. What you claim as reliable sources are political mouthpieces in the same way as the other waring editors are using their mouthpieces... so how are you different from them? you are just another side of the same coin... Amit (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May I remind you that you were arguing that we could not mention the political stances of Modi or any of the parties or organizations with which he is affiliated because that would be libel. I have never heard a more absurd argument. As opposed to most of these editors (I think yuo may be an exception as well) I have a long history of editing many other topics on wikipedia and writing large amounts of article content, not just maintaining articles about my favorite politicians. That is the difference between a pov pushing single purpose account and an actual encyclopedic editor. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion I was mentioning about LIBEL due to edits that you had done here and for the addition of party agenda details i said - wiki reference to those party pages should take care of it instead of explaining it there and at this point i also compared it with Sonia Gandhi page saying congress agenda is not summarized in that page so why are you so much into this person alone... at which point you did seem get to enraged... irrespective of all this... lets say my arguments were not sensible... so is that what you would do? call me a joker? and you expect me to take it lying down? i put a sensible NPA comment on your page which was removed later here and when looking at the IP's i notice two IP's one identified by your id and another IP making the same points across the whole NM discusison page, I put a sock puppet investigation too.. i feel my actions are reasonable... where as yours were not surely cool headed.Amit (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now presented an array of some 10-15 academic peerreviewed sources at the talkpage most of them published within the last 4 years. The aforementioned editors are now arguing that these academic specialist sources are "obsolete" because the Indian government in 2012 released a report exculpating Modi. Some of these sources are critiques if that very report and the modus operandi of the investigation team (who rejected most of the testimonies of hundreds of eye witnesses, and let the murderers free on bail letting them threaten and silence key witnesses etc.). If these editors are allowed to call a 1 year old peer reviewed source by a professor specializing in the topic obsolete, then we can take our policy on reliable sources and use it for toilet paper, and just hand wikipedia over to the POV pushers. Administrator User:Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is among the worst to misrepresent and undercut our foundational policies about sources in this case.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Maunus, but you are handling this very badly. If your real concern is that certain articles need admin attention, you should file a separate report, and include some diffs. By adding sections titled "What I would really like" in a thread instigated to review your behavior, it looks like a desperate attempt to avoid scrutiny. Then concentrate on responding to the issues about your behavior in this thread. As an experienced editor, you should know this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

How would I avoid scrutiny when I have admitted to all the allegations of wrong doing? Block me, ban me or topic ban me I deserve all that, but please take a look at the long term abuse that is going under the radar at these articles. Trust me I have tried all the options, BLPN, NPOVN, RFC at the talkpage etc. and I got NO outside attention whatsoever. Yes, this is my last desperate attempt at getting some outside attention to solve the problem, because I realize that I am likely to be facing sanctions. Sadly admins these days only react when brightline rules are broken, because thats what they know how to handle, and they can be easily proven with a diff. When wikipedia is systematically abused by organized interest groups there is no way for them to act without getting their fingers dirty with actual content work, and lots of tiring back and forth at ArbCom. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• ANI is not the place for this. I doubt that the editors identified above by Maunus would accept me as an uninvolved admin. I don't doubt that Maunus has really good points to make but, as SPhilbrick says, this is not the way to get something done. I do believe that there is way too much fishiness going on in that article and on the talk page, and I believe that this should be taken to a different/higher venue. It's time that this matter be dealt with and an end come to the disruption: I agree with Maunus that the article is far from being neutral, and I'm trying to phrase that delicately. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know ANI is the place to request administrative intervention, which is what I request and what was requested against me (I supposed although noone ever actually made any proposal for any specific sanction). There is no other place for this short of arbcom and who has time for that?68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is always WP:AE (cf. WP:ARBIPA), if the editors you report have already been notified that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the topic area they edit in. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well for those who have not they should be per principles 1, 3 & 4 Any admin got the time to wade through the talk page morass? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that (no particular order) I, RegentsPark, Maunus, Drmies and Sir Nicholas doo-dah ("Nearly Headless Nick") are aware even if we have not had notification. Some of the rest certainly should be - Mrt3366, Yogesh Khandke, Ratnakar/sarvajna etc. In any event, no-one need notify me. This thing is a mess and it is unfortunate that when various issues have been raised in an attempt to seek wider community input there has been, well, very little of a substantive nature. We seem to be heading from content dispute to AE almost in one step and, of course, there is a reluctance to deal with content issues where ArbCom is concerned. To be honest, the lack of swarming that usually accompanies controversies raised at ANI about major political figures mostly reinforces my opinion that we do indeed have a massive systemic bias here. Modi is potentially the next prime minister of India, a country that comprises around 20% of the world's population and thus knocks the UK, US and indeed probably most of the EU into a cocked hat. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone thinks that the systemic bias is limited to WP then take a look at this op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• To an uninvolved editor like myself, this affair looks very similar to the Tea Party RFAR. Given the difficulties in resolving that, I'm not holding my breath for the future of Wikipedia articles in similarly conflicted political areas... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• As no admin her seems to have the balls to do this I will warn all users re WP:ARBIPA Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone with zero evidence writes "...I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda..." The community takes to these conspiracy theories like fish to water, and I am the one who gets a nasty looking warning. Very intelligent. Rhetoric and propaganda can work wonders on the WP community.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just delete the warning, sometimes it is just good to clean the garbage in your page. It is just seems like a WP:POVPUSH by some user who is trying to use WP:INTIM and WP:HUSH. If you feel this is WP:MEAT you should report it - which though I doubt but I am not sure about. Amit (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tsa(x)(gh)kadzor

This is more a question of proper procedure than an incident requiring immediate action, so if anyone thinks it belongs elsewhere, please tell me so or simply move it. We have an article on a place in Armenia called Tsaghkadzor‎ and also a stub about a place in Azerbaijan called Tsaxkadzor (though sources for the latter are pretty thin on the ground). Recently, an Armenian IP has been repeatedly changing the Tsaxkadzor article to be about the Armenian place even though we already have a separate article on it. I've tried to explain in edit summaries why I've reverted these edits and dropped a couple of warnings on the IP's talk page, but I have a feeling that he doesn't understand English very well, and he's been persistent in making the edits. It doesn't seem to be a good case for semiprotection, since it's just the one stable IP doing this; and I feel bad about dropping a couple more warnings and asking for a block, since the IP may not really understand what's going on. What's the best thing to do in such cases? Deor (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I can think of two things and would suggest doing the first before the second. (1) Find someone who speaks Armenian and someone who speaks Azeri; get the first one to write "For the town in Armenia, see Tsaghkadzor" in Armenian and the second to write "For the village in Azerbaijan, see Tsaxkadzor" in Azeri. Paste one on each article, directly under the English-language hatnotes that say the same thing, and be sure to place the text in hidden comments. (2) Block. I suppose there's a small chance that the users simply aren't understanding, but surely they'll understand their own language; someone who keeps this up despite the hidden-text comments is clearly doing it in bad faith. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the coords given for the later, Google Earth shows only a single structure, a lone agricultural building (a chicken or cow shed); not a farmstead, not a hamlet, and certainly not a named place of any note that shows up in either Google or Bing maps. So either the sole source that asserts the existence of Tsaxkadzor is wrong about its location, or we have an article about a cowshed. Either way, without some actual reliable source about Tsaxkadzor, we shouldn't have an article about it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is thinking that it's the same place with two sets of similar coords, the two locations are about 100 miles apart. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If the place doesn't exist, the article should be AfD'd or redirected. It shouldn't be rewritten to treat a different place about which we already have an article. Originally, I thought that this was an ethnic thing, since the putative Tsaxkadzor is in the area of Azerbaijan that is currently under the de facto control of the Armenian-dominated (and not internationally recognized) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic; so I assumed that the IP was merely trying to claim the place for Armenia. But he doesn't just change the country to Armenia; he changes the coordinates, province, and everything else to match the information about Tsaghkadzor‎, which is actually in Armenia. Deor (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of deleting it; the IP's confusion shows that the names are similar enough that it would be a good redirect if we don't retain the article. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Nyttend makes a good point; if Tsaxkadzor fails the WP:GNG (or if there's a hoax or some other thing that leads us to having an article about a run-of-the-mill farm) then it ought to go; but the very fact that somebody's getting it confused with Tsaghkadzor‎ makes it a good candidate for a redirect. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove anything, but I strongly doubt that Tsaxkadzor exists. A lot of similar examples of "close, but not quite" geographical locations can be found on Internet maps dating from the 90s and early 2000s when people with over-eager ambitions decided that all it took to make a comprehensive atlas of the world was access to unlimited computing power and a whole lot of scannable maps. I've found Tsaxkadzor on fallingrain.com, probably the most prominent source of such nonexistent placenames. (On the 0.00001% chance someone from FallingRain is reading, please don't misunderstand me; I love your maps and all the work you've put into them, but they're only 99% reliable, not 100%.) I guess basically what I'm saying is even though it's run by the US military, that GEOnet is by no means a reliable source for geographical data, it's just an aggregator that admits it almost never deletes anything. —Soap— 01:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the Armenian language isn't even related to Azeri. Unless the supposed Azeri placename were named after the Armenian one it would be an amazing coincidence, roughly on par with early American settlers stumbling upon an Algonquin settlement named "Washington" 100 miles away from Washington DC and completely unrelated to the American namesake. —Soap— 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We had a lot of problems with fallingrain in the past. Unfortunately this is compounded by our inability to effectively manage high-volume, low-quality editing based on such gazetteers. We end up with zillions of articles with a neat array of flagicons and categories and infoboxes &c but no evidence of notability and no content apart from vandalism or, in a minority of cases, unreadable cruft which generally accretes from local schoolkids wanting to mention their local school, busroute, or ATM. One example that sticks in my mind is that I found a lot of transport-related factual errors which somebody had added based on fallingrain; after difficult debate they accepted that it wasn't an appropriate source - but instead of undoing their past edits they simply removed all the fallingrain citations so now there are thousands of possibly-false factoids in articles which can't be traced. bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Lucia Black

Lucia Black continues to launch personal attacks against other editors and myself. Lucia Black has a history of civility and battleground issues that span from 2009 to now. Right from our very first interaction at the Ghost in the Shell GAN she accused me of being biased.[16]. In January, in an unrelated matter, Lucia continued to make NPA attacks even at ANI, in this case which attacked the reporter Goodraise. She was warned about her attacks on me at this ANI.[17] She also lobs attacks at other editors with some frequency; especially when she makes mistakes and errors. Part of the issue comes from Lucia Black's removal or alterations of editor comments, like this confusing one.[18] The alteration of RexxS's comments[19] resulted in a warning on her talk page. As a result, Lucia claimed he 'called her a troll' when he did not.[20] It was the same comment made earlier against me after I proved her insertion of false material into an article.[21]

As for the matter of insertion of false material, which is equally serious in my eyes, Lucia knowingly re-inserted false material into an article with an edit summary which hinted as such.[22] She argued falsely on my talk page. [23] [24][25] Which resulted in me pulling the transcript as proof.[26] Which got her to admit that the characters are different, but she was correct to do make that edit because they were similiar.[27] Which resulted in me calling for seriousness, which provoked her making the accusation of bad-faith and trolling. [28] Lucia has continued to spread this false accusation to other editors including Worldtraveler101 today.[29]

While the NPA matter is why I brought this here; other issues have been noted with WP:IDHT/WP:NOTHERE at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deletion_campaign_by_editors. Another example of this battleground and disruption comes from Template_talk:Track_listing with edits like this.[30] Where Lucia disruptively opposes after admitting to not understanding the core problem, and threatens admin intervention after consensus is clearly against her. Something needs to be done because Lucia's conduct has been unacceptable and exhausted the patience of the community with these circular arguments and bullying. I propose admonishment or a warning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Me not understanding the subject was more hypothetical if they knew something they didnt exactly said, then now was the time to say it. Theyve avoided clear questions.

But regardless, every incident is with you involved and they will see your faults aswell. WP:BOOMERANG. Falls here.

Falls material is completely subjective. I tried explaining to you something and you called me a troll. You wanted to look for a source where sources didnt need to be found and could not be found. Its like looking for a source that says link from ocarina of time is the same link in skyward sword. Youre not gonna find a source for that. Its not upto opinion but commonsense.

If I said you called me a troll, its because you said it. And the ONLY reason why Im not bringing up links like you is because this is all on smartphone and would take me all day for one full comment.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I read Template_talk:Track_listing#Album_name_.2B_artist, losing precious time of my life I'll never get back. Andy's proposal there is supported by all but one editor, Lucia Black. I don't think individual remarks toward Chris ("youre all bark, with no reason to leave a bite mark"--parsing the grammar is a bit difficult) rise by themselves to a blockable level, but what I do see is a bad case of I DIDN'T HEAR THAT and a refusal to abide by what is a pretty clear consensus. Someone with a decent amount of technical knowledge should go by there and close that discussion as if it were an RfC, to move forward with Andy's proposal which is supported by RexxS, MrMoustache, LilUnique, ChrisGualteri, and possibly Walter Gorlitz. That will put a stop to that particular unholy discussion which is disruptive/disrupted beyond reason because of Lucia Black who, apparently, neither understands the issue at hand nor is willing to accept that those issues are explained. (That's how I read the comments by all other editors; I'm not delving into the technicalities.) I don't see any boomerangs flying around, and I don't understand that "Falls" means in Lucia Black's response here. So, a warning I will give: Lucia Black, your behavior in that track listing debate is highly disruptive. I will leave the rest to someone else--a decision whether to block her or to extend the discussion in some detail by reference to other disruption, and the close of that discussion about the track listing. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RexxS has his own personal reasons, and acknowledhes it doesnt provide any real benefit within wikipedia as an encyclopedia. lilunique is for granularity in which is practically serving the similar ourpose of metadata and microformat. The problem is that the proposed metadata is more suited if the template was not in the article space and in a separate article. Its enhancing metadata only to be redundant. None of them actually answered my question, even if they claim they have. It wouldnt even hurt to repeat themselves just once to know exactly what they claim is their answer. Its definitely hear-say situation.

As for the rest, Chrisgualtieri is mainly putting this on noticeboard due to me informing another editor its not good idea for him to be an Admin. My comments are incredibly low key, compared to Chris. But I cant nominate him, even if he is disruptive of admin level, because they wont. However, I have not said a lie about Chris. CHRIS knows im telling the truth, but this time it compromised his way to becoming an admin. Which is good, because hes not ready to be one, ive reported 3 edit wars on him, all got away with technicalities of responding after ANI, other editors involved also made mention of him in ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This editor is also bringing WP:CANVAS for people who are barely related at all. It seems ridiculois to bring anyone else. Not that I dont have any other editors who have witnessed these situations relating to me and chris, but overall why should I? This is ridiculous.Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to rehash that argument here, but your comments about the opinions of RexxS and Lil-unique1 are, as far as I can tell, completely incorrect. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not like having to reply to defend myself here. Your point is duly noted; there is no RFA; I just wanted the tools for administrative backlogs like WP:FTCG and merges assisting with undeletion request like Ashen Empires. I do not want to go back and forth over every detail, but it is proper to notify people that their names have been mentioned at ANI. I explicitly mentioned their name and provided diffs to evidence, I notified them as a courtsey.[31][32][33] We may not agree on things Lucia, but I have never called you a troll; a troll does not improve the coverage of articles at Square Enix and Anime as you do. As much as I like your work at Final Fantasy Dimensions, the conflict is ideology based and I simply do not know how to appeal to you and work together. I've done all that I am capable of, even begging for cooperation on Talk:Ghost in the Shell. This is not about 'winning', I just want things to be factually accurate. I am not a scholar in the field, but works like Tokyo Cyberpunk: Posthumanism in Japanese Visual Culture is a defining book on the subject. While that content dispute is past, I fear that I will have to readdress the appropriateness of a topic-level article at some future point as noted by WP:DETAIL, where you were in the minority opinion. The issue that I brought to ANI however, is the personal attacks. Which I have cited, with diffs, the origin and reason behind why you used it. I do not want you blocked or banned; I just hope that this serves as a call that such conduct is unwelcome. I apologize for any perceived rudeness, in this post and the one above, because the last five months have worn on me. I am unable to resolve this by myself and DRN was of no use, the RFCs have been my way to address this, because I alone cannot solve this problem. I welcome anyone with the fortitude to mediate this issue; I just want this problem to be resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Im too tired too search for when exactly you said but I know it was gits related. Still the problem is just between me and you. Whenever you engage you dont stay nuetral, you constantly bring other topics that arent relevant, you use the same attacks you claim I make to you. You always try to undermind my comment by telling other editors of the past discussions. Thats not being civil, thats provoking an argument that can be avoided. You have no room to say anything. Youve edit warred 3 times for the same subject knowing full well you had no consemsus, and knowing it was against BRD rule. Everytime theres a discussion you turn it into something else. Do I mention previous discussions? No. You have always been the first one to provoke. Stop trying to bring ANI to block for something you not only started but continued to fight even I. Topics unrelated to it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gits? Lucia Black, you need to see that the problem (as far as that Track listing debate is concerned) isn't between you and Chris but between you and everyone else. We need some more eyes on this to confirm: this is a disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  GitS = Ghost in the Shell. —Frungi (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No its not. Such as tracklisting, the editors refused to answer strong consensus changing questions and avoided the flaws. And even then Andy Mabett made it completely clear he didnt want to even clarify the other editors who supported his cause despite having completely different motives.

Disruption isnt "constant" nor "admin" worthy because all im being accused of is wanting to know why consensus is leaning toward this. Sue me for wanting a more agreeing consensus rather than a consensus that has each benefits their personal views but not really supporting the actual cause or focused on how much it would affect an article.

Being in a dispute is not disruptive. Especially if im asking key relevant questions. Even then, its not even admin worthy nor disruptive in general. Its not a poll decision, its based on reasoning. The others barely made any significant reason. The only one who was actually clear was RexxS who was worried about modifying the template so it can be used outside of wikipedia. Still metadata is based solely on the tracklist, they forget that the same info is on the article space and that much metadata is unnecessary. As long as title parameter (sharing the same name of the article title in most cases) is present. Still, its just enhancement for the sake of enhancement and completely subjective. And im not going to fight over this. Mentioning every dispute isnt proving anything significant. Ive seen several editors get in dispute several times. Im done with this, j formally apologize and it wont happen again. Etc. Point being, this is pointless.Lucia Black (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

The problem was that your questions were answered, the same way they were answered more then a dozen times at the Pump RFC which was after a lengthy discussion at the A&M talk page. While this is not an exhaustive list, these diffs show WP:IDHT.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] You were instructed by half a dozen editors why article assessment is not tied to notability; you cannot delete an article because it cannot make C class. You respond to the editors with comments like: Again...missing the point. So im not going to repeat the same explanations. You all know youre misinterpretting it. Also in that diff, you strangely removed part of my comment which should not be done. It wasn't major, but you did this and got warned by RexxS which you then accused him of calling you a troll as noted in the diffs above. I do not know why you keep doing that either. Though I do appreciate the apology, but it shouldn't be directed at me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In the end, one admitted its not against any policy to do such a campaigne. And even then, you guys havent actually proven that classes arent related to notability. And whats worst is that it didnt affect the campaigne overall. It was pure devils advocate. Even though evidence strongly suggest stubs and start are articles that havent made the notability apparent.

Regardless, unlike tracklist people were onboard with the othersl discussions.im in ANI simply for defending my prooosald and reasoning.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No Lucia, you are here because of increasing concerns about your attitude in respect of this and it's time you read it (note that it's a policy and not just an essay). Whether you have a computer or not or edit from a mobile device, you are required as we all are to produce diffs to support your claims. I don't think this discussion will end in you being blocked, but you should take note that being brought here is serious, and your TL:DR retorts are not going to help your cause. Perhaps you can learn from this experience, because you didn't take any notice of what experienced editors were telling on the Pump discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't support a block (yet), but I do believe Lucia needs a very stern warning; every discussion you enter, it seems there are complaints of you arguing needlessly, being overly stubborn, and issues regarding WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT. Every time, it seems you're unwilling, or unable, to see anyone else's interpretation of policy. You need to tone it down, or I'm afraid you're going to upset the wrong Admin and get yourself blocked. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't block you for anything unless its very overt, due to WP:INVOLVED. I just mean that its getting disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read any of these, these are discussions that someone provokes and unserminds me. Im nit going to argue about this. Im done. No one here is a saint in those discussions either. In the end for track listing no one addressed the issues/or even answeeed the question. B)The AfD campaigne wasnt read correctly and editors focused on what they want to focus, which is how I personally view the connection between nitabikiry (specifically stub/start). And of course, when ChrisGualtieri gets involved (looked at tracklist talk) he will provoke a nastier discussion. I still asked new consensus changing questions. Halfway through they didnt even address itx near the end they claimed they did. There are editors out there who argue a ton. And my attitude is based on how the argument flows.

Basically im no saint but im not the one who throws the first punch. And whenever I do provoke, I provoke answers and explanations relevant to the discussion. Im DONE! If you want me to acknowledge this as a serious issue bring a topic where someone addressed everything ive said in a dispute and I gave attitude. Chris isnt putting me up on ANi, for this. If he would he would know he has even worst ways of doing (I could care less if this ANI is for me the one who put me on here shouldnt be the one who has even worst attitude. No editor should drag past discussions, or undermind another editors comment, no matter how incompetent that editor feels about them. That not only provokes the other editor, but also fuels his personal issues with the other. Ive seen many editors get away with even worst. Read those disoutes carefully. Im not the one throwing the first punch.Lucia Black (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• We get it: it's all someone else's fault. Your way-too long responses all boil down to the same thing--your questions weren't answered. Well, they were, and we're way past that. Kudpung and Sergecross are probably correct, that this won't end with a block, but discussions with you are torturous. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

sock troll put back under bridge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with lucia on this. Chris isnt innosent in this and hes been trying to stir the pot and drag old issues up. He was disruptive and provokin gLucia. It almost seems like Chris has been poisoning the well. He shouldnt be provoking users and probably should be warned. KuroiNekoko-chan (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved, just wanted to point out that this is User:KuroiNekoko-chan's very first edit. Howicus (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC) You didnt sign youre post. Are you a Sock Puppet of ChrisGualtieri? KuroiNekoko-chan (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Whoops, signed. And no, not a sockpuppet. Howicus (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Kuroi is going around and hounding ChrisG. Only warning template dropped. Ishdarian 19:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Lucia Black needs a warning, and no more or less than RexxS does, but that's a separate AN/I case. A block is not warranted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what has RexxS done? He certainly hasn't gone around filling up talk pages and ANI pages with tons of ill-pertaining commentary. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by Peterzor

Personal attack at Talk:Soviet Union. User is User:Peterzor See diff showing attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=556596468&oldid=556595902 See diff showing blanking of user talk page, with incorrect edit summary of reverting vandalism, to remove notices. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peterzor&curid=36728281&diff=556617356&oldid=556599808 Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're already discussing this at WP:AN ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This user has received numerous warnings on his talk page [44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55], but the message that he must abide by Wikipedia policies doesn't seem to be getting through. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have been experiencing problems with this editor on Nazi Germany, where I have been trying to prep the article for GA. He has 88 edits to that article since the beginning of April, with almost all of the edits focusing on two sentences in the lead. He's repeatedly removed content that I added specifically in response to the peer review (diff, diff, diff, diff), added factually incorrect and poorly worded material (diff, diff), ignored ongoing talk page discussions that are not going his way and then re-inserting his preferred version of the article (diff, diff) via slow-motion edit wars. Overnight he was canvassing other users when I reverted his addition of unsourced content (Diff of User talk:Boson; Diff of User talk:Rjensen; Diff of User talk:Moxy). Some of his edits to his own talk page make me suspect competence issues (sample four-minute series of edits: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. I have been trying very hard to assume good faith, but in my opinion the matter goes beyond a content dispute and into the issue of this editor's suitability to contribute here. Independent examination of this editor's activities would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

these users has a content dispute with me so they want me out of the way Peterzor (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Add sock puppetry to the mix: After commenting as Peterzor (talk · contribs)[56], he logs out and adds a comment as an IP [57], then logs back in and reverts claiming 3 people support his version[58]. --Nug (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• I forgot to log in when i edited as an ip i heve never noticed that (i thought i was loged in) until now when i read your post here also see [59] where i forgot earlier but fixed the problem thorught replacing ip with user signing
• Nug is now [60] opposing my edits as a revenge Peterzor (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Characterising this comment[61] as "a revenge" demonstrates why this editor's suitability to contribute is being called into question. --Nug (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You started to oppose my other edit thoght our dispute with nug was on the soviet union article and not on nazi germany Peterzor (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Did Peterzor receive an official notice/warning from an administrator about discretionary sanctions in this subject area? They should. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

wait i do not deserve such treatment, please be reasonable Peterzor (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is simply something you should know. Instead of giving you this warning, Dainna could give you an official warning about discretionary sanctions in Eastern Europe, and then, if problematic behavior continued, simply topic-ban you from editing anything related to Eastern Europe. Would anyone object? No, I do not think so. You are lucky be reported on this noticeboard where no one will do anything.My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

if "no one will do anything" why am getting something which in practice a topic ban then? why am not allowed to edit the soviet union article, please tell what i have done wrong besides me reading all the accusations,

1.i did not insult or attack anyone! i olny said one user lied and nothing more people agreed with on that see[62]

2.i did not do any "sock puppetry" i simply forgot to log in see [63]

3.if i did any edit warring without breaking 3rr it is mutual if you se the edit history the users which i have a dispute with reverted my edits were also editwarring by constantly reverted all my edits they said i did "wrong edits" or "edit warring" there is no such thing evry good faith edit is contructive and yes i know people agree with the argument of "it does not matter if you broke 3rr or not your edits are automatically bad and should be repetadly be reverted" Peterzor (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, you do not have any topic ban. Right? I would simply advice you to edit non-controversial subjects and do not edit any high-profile well developed pages. Then it will be easier for you to adopt without making conflicts with other users. I usually do not edit such articles at all. This is simply too much trouble. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Peterzor. You say that every good faith edit is constructive; I have to disagree, so sorry. Your presence at the Nazi Germany article has been hindering, not helping, the development of the article. All of your edits so far have been completely unsourced. Sources are what separate Good Articles from B-class and C-class articles. And most of your edits have had grammatical errors. (Your post above has at least eight spelling errors, and any number of grammar and punctuation errors.) You really can't be of any assistance prepping an important article like Nazi Germany for a GA nomination with such English language skills. To pass GA the article will have to use a professional level of English; spelling and grammar errors are completely unacceptable. Perhaps you would be better off editing on your native language wiki or trying out your editing skills on lower profile less important articles at first. Sorry if this hurts your feelings. -- Dianna (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit to the soviet union olny involves restoring the infobox there is no grammatical errors cant i still do that without edit warring? Peterzor (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Meyerbeer13 making pointy edits.

Meyerbeer13 (talk · contribs · count) is a new user who has got annoyed at a couple of experienced users who have tried to explain the Wikipedian way. The user has just accused User:Smerus of all people of being an anti-Semite. This choice of targets makes me wonder if there is some trolling going on. Edit captions such as "removed tendentious and disparaging remarks -- when you put such remarks in Mozart's bio then put them in Meyerbeer's" when removing a cited quotation and "deleted tendentious judgement" when truncating a quote from William Christie (harpsichordist) suggest that he is on a WP:POINT trip.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This user has violated WP:OR, WP:PEA and WP:CENSOR many times in his so far short career on en.wikipedia.org. That, and accusing anyone of being anti-semitic because of a content dispute, makes this editor block-worthy, and I support a block of him, whether temporary or indefinite. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is not good. "Just because something isn't sourced, doesn't mean that it isn't valid -- this is a bogus argument. I have thought deeply and read a lot about these composers." Another thing; 8 days as an editor with 25 edits and he is using language like "removed tendentious and disparaging remark" in edit summaries? The WP:DUCK test tells me that this is a sockpuppet of someone who has been warned or blocked for tendentious editing and disparaging remarks toward other editors. Does anyone have any idea who the sockmaster might be? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This was completely unacceptable, but I don't think he's here to troll, and I'm almost positive he's not a sockpuppet. He doesn't use "tendentious" in the Wikipedia way. He uses it to describe the opinions of published authors and experts with which he disagrees. He's explicitly said he doesn't believe negative evaluations of composers belong in articles, no matter who made the evaluation. This is one of those typical cases of a new (and probably knowledgeable) editor who's here to "right a great wrong" (he is an admirer of both Lully and Meyerbeer) but hasn't really understood our requirements about original research, reliable sources, and the necessity to discuss an article's issues on its talk page when you have been reverted by multiple editors. He seems to have stopped edit-warring. If he starts again, perhaps a note on his talk page from someone not involved in the article will help him to take the advice less personally. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has started again. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is published, doesn't make it worthwhile. I truncated the William Christie remark, as quotes are often truncated, because it ended the article on a meaningless disparagement. My father was a great Wagnerian, and he used to say Wagner's recitatives were interminable. So why isn't that comment in the Wagner article?

And on the point of antisemitism, there are plenty of antisemitic Jews, it's almost an archetype.

The beauty of Wikipedia was you used to be able to find out things that precisely weren't in the published literature. You guys are making Wikipedia just as worthless as the published literature. I don't care particularly about Wikipedia standards, about a bunch of morons who devote eons of their time to sanitizing something and blocking someone who has a valuable point of view.

And no, I don't believe an encyclopedia is a place for either disparagement or hero worship. Meyerbeer was a very successful opera composer, he was vilified by Wagner, and a lot of Wagner's comments have found their way into the secondary literature, repeated by people who have maybe never heard a Meyerbeer opera, certainly never heard a good live performance.

Even the comment about how Meyerbeer didn't understand music and had to write reams of music that was then cut before the premiere, that doesn't make sense -- anyone who is a professional in the world of opera knows the two hardest composers to cut are Meyerbeer and Donizetti, their dramas (however they arrived to that point) are incredibly tight.

I'm waiting for one of you guys to tell me what's so sacred about "published literature" -- in musicology frankly a lot of it just repeats stuff that's not either verifiable or meaningful.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"The beauty of Wikipedia was you used to be able to find out things that precisely weren't in the published literature." No; WP:OR states, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Toccata quarta (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"And on the point of antisemitism, there are plenty of antisemitic Jews, it's almost an archetype." My experience is that it is those Jews who go on about "self-hating" Jews who are most likely to be the anti-Semitic ones, not their targets. Smerus is a founding member of his synagogue and was a member of his university's Jewish Studies department when he researched his PhD. The book based on his research received a favourable review in the Jewish Chronicle. Someone with that sort of background strikes me as being comfortable with his Jewish identity. You could have apologized to him for your crass implication that he might be anti-Semitic. Instead you chose to come here and defend your accusation by suggesting that Smerus could still be anti-Semitic. I don't know what any of the admins here are going to do but I think that this project can live without people who behave as you do.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost more offended at being described as an 'archetype' than I am at being described as an anti-Semite :-}. Still it is interesting to witness Meyerbeer13's continuing dedication to self-immolation on Wikipedia. דוד בן יצחק הכהן aka --Smerus (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

People put stuff on Wikepedia that comes from their personal knowledge. Sometimes it's not sourced. That's fine. The mania for sources comes from an academic tradition that often serves to perpetuate mistakes. Meyerbeer tends to attract negative meaningless comments; to a lesser extent that is also true of Lully. Why is Meyerbeer a victim of this? Undoubtedly it comes to some extend from Wagner, thus there is an antisemitic component to it. In music, taste is a personal decision. Is Haydn better than Mozart or Mozart better than Haydn? Who knows, and really who cares? A statement of fact is that Mozart couldn't have been Mozart without Haydn. Should I source this last opinion? According to Wikepedia, yes. My response, with Brahms: Das kennt jede Esel.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what Brahms (allegedly) said was "Das sieht jeder Narr". I think we should get our quotes and sources right, even on discussion pages. But it just goes to show that 'personal knowledge', what we think we 'know', may often be inaccurate. In view of this editor's continuing and adamant attitude that everyone on Wikipedia is out of step except himself, I would now support a block.--Smerus (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet another disruptive edit, done in spite of the previous warnings and this discussion. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Meyerbeer13 is aware of what constitutes original research, yet chooses to disregard policy with regard to its use, I have given them a final warning. If they continue to add original research to articles they will be blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And he continues, in spite of receiving a final warning. Toccata quarta (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doing "original research" I'm just posting things I know about. I'm happy if people correct me. And I don't live in a research library and no one's paying me to look up citations. But I think that article on Lully shouldn't end with a disparagement, whether or not William Christie said it, you should point out how many composers were fundamentally influenced by Lully, way more than by Charpentier or Handel. Handel's operas are supremely unimportant, nobody ever cared about them. Lully on the other hand was fundamental to the history of Western music.

Meyerbeer13 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible linkage with a sock?

Is there any link between User:Rembrandt_Peale, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Evidence-based,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beheading_in_the_name_of_Islam. User:Rembrandt_Peale is clearly an experienced Wikipedian. Just not sure if there's a link with Evidence-based. Another possible link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historicist/Archive --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thats interesting. I can provide behavioral evidence relating this new user to Historicist, but it looks to me that Historicist was just part of the Evidence-based sockfarm. Color me surprised. nableezy - 08:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in these matters. What are the next steps? Should this be brought to check user? I don't know how that works, what evidence needs to be provided, etc., and wanted to ask advice here on what to do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The next step is to file a report at WP:SPI. nableezy has volunteered to do that when he gets a chance. You can see the kind of evidence required from previous reports (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historicist/Archive). Existing checkuser data has probably been deleted but the editor often edits from a known location. Behavioral evidence (or evidence covered by WP:PRIVACY) will presumably need to be submitted offline. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Intimidation by User:Rcsprinter123

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

---

I find this intimidation of an editor who does not happen to share Rcsprinter123's personal views of what Wikipedia should or should not be seriously disturbing. I believe some sort of sanction is needed to bring home to this editor the meaning of collegiate editing and community consensus.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide some more of the back story than just the one diff. Based on Rcsprinter's comments, it sounds like there is one, which includes not only Davey but also you. I don't see why you should put us to the task of digging for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, I removed the route list (on Richards Brothers) per WP:Notdir, he reverted, I reverted, he then stuck above comment on my page, I replied with "get a life".

I then decided to remove his cmt/my reply, hours later he took to the talk page to attempt with an discussion so I replied and that's it,

It's not the first time he's been "pleasant" to me [64], apart from me+ RCSprinter - no editors are involved & removals after the "get a ife" cmt are RFC removals,

Thanks Charles for your help, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as "intimidation". I do see it as getting rather carried away, and Rcsprinter should tone it down a bit.

In fact, all of the people involved should tone it down a bit, do some experimental dis-engaging, and so forth.

Charlesdrakew, have you had any interactions with Rcsprinter in the past? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any need for admin action here, but Rcsprinter who also has a troubled editing and behaviour history is in no position to start throwing his weight around in this manner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, So he speaks to me like shit & seems to have gotten away with it?, Personally I do think it's bullying & it shouldn't be tolerated!, Although we all perceive things in different ways If he's done it with me he'll probably do it with someone else too.... Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It may not rise to the level of intimidation, but [w]e wouldn't like to see you topic banned, would we... Sir is particularly unpleasant, even if this Rcs is correct on the merits (and I admit I have not checked). Rcs, in the future please refrain from using a language that can be reasonably perceived as confrontational or threatening. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems clear-cut intimidation to me as well as unpleasant and uncivil. I know that this is an empty and meaningless threat but less experienced editors may not know that and may be deterred from editing in good faith. Rcsprinter123 is not correct on the merits. A large number of lists of non-notable local bus routes have recently been deleted at AfD by overwhelming consensus among numerous editors. Many of them were nominated by Davey, editing within policy. Rcsprinter123 refuses to accept this consensus and continues to look for ways round it. If this kind of attack is not dealt with it is likely to be used again against editors who are less able to shake it off as nonsense.--Charles (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

..... Charles has hit the nail on the head!, He won't accept bus routes aren't encyclopedic,

This is the EXACT reason why I didn't do f-all about it - Because clearly Sir RCSprinter WILL get away with it!,

Turn the tables around & lets say I made the comment - WITH OUT A DOUBT I'd be blocked/sanctioned!!,

It's damn ridiculous!! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Davey2010 has now followed this up by altering his own talk page to say "This user thinks
User:Rcsprinter123 is a complete TWAT!! end of." (emphasis in the original) in a huge box at the top. If this is any indication of how he's interacted with Rcsprinter previously, it would seem this is not a one-sided problem. In fact there may be a need for a WP:BOOMERANG here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Now updated following advice from Carrite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I regret which I've decided to remove!!, I simply needed to let off steam & clearly wasn't thinking! (See Carrite's talkpage), Both me and Rcsprinter have moved on, (I've striked above as it's a comment I certainly don't agree with!), We all say stupid stuff when we're angry, We've both now said something totally stupid, Onwards & Upwards I say, I'd rather just leave the past in the past & move on both contributing, anyway Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

A note

This is the first time I've commented in this discussion, but would you all please read User:Rcsprinter123/Not Rcs; it gets up my snout when I am addressed/referred to as such. Thanking you all kindly. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 09:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox

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

---

Have a problem were an editor is simply refusing to listen to the small consensus on a talk page as seen at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#China and Japan. The editor in question User:Phead128 (AKA IP: 50.136.53.17) has reverted 4 editors multiple times over the exact same edit at Template:WW2InfoBox. As seen on the templates talk page we have talked about it including the aforementioned user and came to a consensus - be it very small amount of people. Looking for some more input on the situation and how to proceed. What is the best course of action here - ask for more to get involved because its a small consensus or simply ask for a block for disruptive behavior and/or 3 revert rule. They have been informed about the 3 revert rule and I can assume by its blanking it is understood or at the very least read.Moxy (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• 31 hours for edit warring. Moxy, best to set up an "official" count, or an RfC, to get it clad in iron. I see the consensus there, but having it made official might help next time. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point - more involved officially may help overall - if still a problem in 32 hours will ask for a formal RfC. The whole situation was not handled on the tlak page in the - best - most respectful manner and is why I can here before reporting the 3 revert.... to get a second opinion. I can see how User:Phead128 is a bit upset - I am also to blame for being a bit harsh. --Moxy (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing (against consensus), but there were a few insults as well, and I think they had the most of those. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I think User:Phead128 could have been treated a bit more gently. What he was suggesting was reasonable and accurate IMO. The other editors involved could have checked the facts before getting deeper into the argument. User:Phead128 was edit warring so the block is justified, but can we reduce the length to 24 or 12 hours? --Kleinzach 12:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I took a chance and unblocked, trusting that Drmies won't shank me for it. Let's see if we can turn Phead into a productive editor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • And I took one of your little war boats away, that you play with in the bathtub, just because I can. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, have i wandered into some kind of private conversation? --Kleinzach 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
        • In case you're watching this still, Klein – yes, yes you did. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for a neutral party to do a procedural close

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

---

I'm requesting assistance from an uninvolved person familiar with RFC/Us to delete one as not meeting minimum requirements. I could speedy delete it myself, but as I'm the person being commented upon I think it would be better if someone else did it. I've waited the requisite 48 hours. The RFC/U doesn't meet the requirement: Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The "evidence" given by the two certifiers are diffs relating to completely different matters, and do not show an attempt at resolution or compromise on the same matter as required. (Also, most of the diffs are to content disputes, not conduct disputes.)

The RFC/U is located here: RFC/U:Xenophrenic

The RFC/U is problematic for a number of other reasons. It is redundant to the identical conduct reviews presently being handled at ANI and ArbCom. The Statement/Description of dispute comes with zero diffs, and the few "evidence" non-diffs provided are actually links to nonspecific discussions, some covering many days and hundreds of comments on content disputes -- making it impossible to respond. The 4 editors offering "views" are also all on the same side of an ongoing content dispute in a moderated discussion - coincidence, I'm sure. I've read every word of their commentary, and if they want to refile a request that meets the minimum requirements of a defined dispute with specific evidence and specific attempts at resolution by two editors, I'll be able to respond. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the supporting diffs, I encourage Xenophrenic to address their behavior rather than attempting to have the RFCU deleted on a bureaucratic basis. NE Ent 10:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, I sincerely doubt that you have read the diffs, else you would know that I've already addressed any behavior allegations. So perhaps you would not mind specifying here what that exact behavior is, and include what you see as the most compelling "supporting diff" of that behavior that you have reviewed - rather than perpetuate the very same problem of vagueness brought to this noticeboard? You also appear to be unaware that I've already addressed the identical allegations in a previous ANI. A more thoughtful response would be appreciated, NE Ent, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I reiterate my request to have the afore-mentioned RFC/U deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Never heard of you before, so I think I'm neutral. The statements by the certifiers are on the same issue, so in my opinion this should not be deleted as uncertified. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• We've talked a few times, Nyttend; this discussion comes to mind. I consider it a good sign that you consider our interactions non-memorable. Regarding the "statements by the certifiers", they aren't. Those are actually cherry-picked past negative comments regarding me from various other discussions, compiled and posted by the filer and attributed to different editors. Those "statements" were not written for this RFC/U. Now look at the 3 "diffs" provided by Malke as her Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute described in her "statement". Not a single one of them shows any evidence of her (much less both certifiers) trying and failing to resolve the dispute described in her "statement", as required. Instead, they are links to other matters entirely, and I'm left facing a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and name-calling that can't possibly be reasonably addressed. The minimum requirements exist for a reason, and I request that you reconsider your opinion with those requirements in mind. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly it says 'may' be deleted. Not 'will' be deleted in the RFC requirements. Secondly the the diffs do not need to be about the same specific incident if they are evidence of your editing behavior - which is the basis of the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it further says 'should' be delisted, as in: RfCs which do not meet minimum requirements should be delisted from the "Candidate pages" section - they are not archived as they are considered "uncertified". And also 'should' be speedy deleted, RfCs which do not meet the minimum requirements should be marked for speedy deletion with (db-maintenance) "This RfC/U is uncertified." Secondly, the diffs are to show where an attempt has been tried by the two certifiers and failed to resolve the indicated dispute. The few diffs provided do not show that, and fail to meet that requirement. In addition, RfC/Us are also closed when the dispute has proceeded to another venue in dispute resolution. Bear in mind that if it has proceeded to arbitration or mediation, a case needs to have been accepted and opened before the RfC/U should be closed. This same dispute about this same behavior is presently at arbitration (note that much of the "evidence" in the RFC is copied from the current ArbCom case). Xenophrenic (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking Xenophrenic is referencing Tea Party Movement; they are not an involved party and, as the case is two months old, it seems unlikely the committee would want them added, but I'll ask the drafting arbitrators. NE Ent 12:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the case, and I am already there - see the Findings of Fact and the Proposed Remedies specific to me. Not being initially named in a case does not mean that you are immune to review and sanctions. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see that. It does mean that the arbitration committee, broadly construed, doesn't seem to have their act together; I've asked for clarification.NE Ent 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a slow process, and SilkTork has even floated the idea of suspending the ArbCom case to allow time for his Moderated Discussion to perhaps alleviate some of the core problems. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I reiterate my request to have the afore-mentioned RFC/U deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone has heard you now. I think perhaps this series of posts could also be considered "evidence" alas. Perhaps verbum sapienti satis est is needed - listen to the complaints and look in a mirror reciting Burn's poem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:Xenophrenic: this is exactly the type of behavior that has to stop. Clearly, there are users that think your behavior can be improved. Instead of trying to rationalize your behavior and get the RFC/U deleted due to a technicality, I would encourage you to participate in the RFC/U and try to address the concerns raised. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Sigh) User:Nathan Johnson, please stop that. I hope that was unintentional on your part. Do not misrepresent my actions. If you had bothered to read my original post, and my subsequent comments, you would already know that I have not tried to get the RFC/U deleted in lieu of addressing the concerns raised. Did you just skip past where I noted the present state of the RFC/U makes it impossible for me to respond, but if they would refile their concerns in an intelligible format, "I'll be able to respond"? Everyone's behavior can be improved, as no one is perfect, and every reasonable person should welcome constructive observations and suggestions. My request here is an effort to facilitate that process. Your comment (and to a lesser extent Collect's), on the otherhand, appear designed to derail it. That is exactly the type of behavior that has to stop. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Nathan Johnson: There isn't even a technicality here for Xenophrenic to attempt to use as a basis for delisting the RfC/U. User:WhatamIdoing, who appears to be an unofficial senior editor in charge at the RfC/U board, has personally reverted Xenophrenic's repeated attempts to delist his own RfC/U. She has discussed this at length with Xenophrenic on her own User Talk page. The allegations as stated in the RfC/U, together with the diffs provided for attempts to resolve the matter, are sufficient (in her opinion) to open the RfC/U and keep it upon, but Xenophrenic is still here at ANI trying to get it deleted.
• Xenophrenic: ... I have not tried to get the RFC/U deleted in lieu of addressing the concerns raised. This is a false statement. The nature of your conduct is such that one or two diffs are insufficient to demonstrate your tendentious behavior. Only an overview of all your editing, across all articles related to U.S. politics, their Talk pages, and the User Talk pages of others who edit these articles, would give a complete picture of the tendentious nature of your participation at Wikipedia. Six different editors have stated "endorsed" for one or more versions of the statement, "Xenophrenic is a tendentious editor." For examples, take a look at recent examples of when you were identified by SilkTork as one of four participants in an editwar (without being blocked), or when SilkTork gave you an outdented warning, in red (again without blocking you), that your comments were starting to stray over the line into contributor conduct, rather than proposed content. In both these very, very recent incidents, you just barely managed to avoid a block. You know what I'm talking about. Both of them happened on Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's please keep things factual, ♦ P&W. I never delisted the RFC/U; I left it listed but moved it out of the "certified" section because it failed to meet the minimum requirements for certification - something WhatamIdoing did not deny. ♦ Nor has she given her opinion that the nonexistant "diffs provided for attempts to resolve the matter" were sufficient; instead, she deemed that compliance wasn't "necessary" in this case, and personally took responsibility for certifying it. ♦ I didn't "barely manage to avoid a block" when SilkTork "identified" me as editwarring; I went to SilkTork, reported your editwarring, and requested that he intervene in lieu of me reverting your latest edits, which he did.

We've heard your accusation of "tendentious behavior" before, followed by your convenient excuse that you can't substantiate your accusation because you'd have to cite my whole edit history to prove it. Save it for the RFC/U. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Ricose

This user is continuously vandalizing articles even after repetitive warnings. His trait has been to remove the references as well as the referenced contents from an article and leaving an edit summary like removing peacocks and puffs or anything that would misguide other editors. Most recently he has been doing that in Joya Ahsan. I have successively warned the user with 3 vandalism templates on his talk page for his edits [65], [66], [67] but he kept on vandalizing the article. Further, he also went on to put a similar warning template on my talk page here. I have also found his edits being reverted for possible vandalism in the articles Tasbiha Binte Shahid Mila, Stoic Bliss etc. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

hmm, interesting that you come to report me for "vandalism" when you're the one who was previously warned by both me and another administrator for continuously re-adding puff, peacockery and original research to articles? at the risk of repeating myself for what seems like the 100th time, wikipedia is NOT a place for inflated superfluous verbosity and personal advertising!Ricose (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add any puffs or peacocks rather I just reverted your massive content removals in those articles. Though the articles were in quite bad shape and you were really removing puffs and peacocks from those articles but as I mentioned before you also removed many references and contents that were not puffs which you continued to do even after repetitive warnings. YIn this case of Joya Ahsan, you are simply vandalizing the article by removing the references and referenced contents which can be seen in the diffs given. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of vandalism here, Zayeem. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here. Removing unsourced or promotional content is not vandalism. Let's start by assuming good faith and then move on to discussing content disputes civilly on the article's talk page. Vandalism templates and reports to this drama board seem like an over-reaction to me, but maybe there is something that I am not seeing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you take a close look at these diffs [68], [69], [70] you will see the user is just vandalizing the article Joya Ahsan by removing the references and the referenced contents and leaving some misguiding edit summaries. He actually doing these things since February (when he created his account) and continued to do so with some small breaks in between. Initially I assumed good faith and advised the user several times to change this trait but he kept on doing. My posts on his talk pages can be seen here. However, I was forced to use the vandalism templates when I was annoyed by his recent edits in the article Joya Ahsan which are clearly nonconstructive (diffs are given above). Moreover, its not just me, he was also warned by other editors before me for similar reasons which can be seen here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Want to point out, that User:Ricose was inactive in last few days (when this discussion started) but he emerged again and removed the references from the article here just when he noticed that the discussion was mistakenly archived by a bot here. In his latest edit, he stated that he is removing the original research, however he actually kept the original research and only removed the references along with the referenced contents. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems better for WP:AIV. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 12:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did report him in WP:AIV, but they advised to consider WP:Dispute resolution. I then felt WP:ANI would be the best solution. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• The only admin intervention that can come out of this, as far as I can tell, is a block for edit warring for both editors. This edit, by the way, removes a perfectly valid "peacock" tag (and Zayeem has done that in subsequent edits also): in either editor's preferred state, the article is in bad shape (not to say "atrocious"). What the article needs is an editor who knows a bit more about neutral writing and what is and isn't appropriate in terms of content, and in the lead. Both of you need to take this to the talk page (which is completely devoid of any content) and there must be no talk of "vandalism". Reverting without discussing on the talk page is a sure way of getting an edit-warring block. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright I admit I have been indulged in edit war, but I have asked the user several times to discuss first and raise the issue before section blanking, he just ignored it. Besides, he has been continuously removing the references which made me suspicious. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your suspicion is not actionable. I see you've done some work, citing stuff--that's the way to go. Now both of you need to take it to the talk page or the article might get full protection, and blocks might start happening. Both of you, edit carefully please. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just go through his contributions and you will understand the reason behind my suspicion. Now in his latest edit he just removed 5 references from reliable sources, and added some blogs as references to make room for future conflict. He also removed some contents which were supported by the references as well as some info from the infobox. This is surely nonconstructive if not vandalism. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

CEngelbrecht and the aquatic ape hypothesis

CEngelbrecht (talk · contribs) is a believer in the fringe aquatic ape hypothesis. Though not quite a single purpose account, it's pretty close (particularly in 2012-13). S/He has been unable to garner an acceptable consensus to change the page towards one s/he finds appropriate, and has instead begun using such tactics as blanking the page to leave only his/her "indignant" protest (note warning), and leaving sarcastic comments in the article (note talk page discussion). I believe this disruption is sufficient to warrant a topic ban. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User notification and I left a note on the AAH talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand this edit and its summary. Didn't they add this source? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Elaine Morgan is probably the strongest proponent of the AAH, so it's extremely unlikely that source verifies the text it is attached to. Here's the sequence:

• CEngelbrecht adds a chunk of personal opinion, unsourced (I link to it in my opening sequence)
• S/He then adds the reference to Morgan (which I am quite sure is spurious and inappropriate, though perhaps the source itself does discuss the rejection of the AAH)
• The sarcastic commentary is removed by an IP (this is the AAH talk page discussion I link to above; note that the anon deletes the source and sarcasm, but leaves a double-period; this is essentially the right edit, but the source should have been removed as well)
• CEngelbrecht removes both the Morgan source and a sentence that was in the page before the addition of his/her sarcastic commentary.
• AndytheGrump replaces both source and sentence through an undo (while the sentence is vaild, the source is probably not, at least not in this form)
• CEngelbrecht removes the sentence and source again (and note edit summary, "Okay. That source is arguing the exact opposite of the nonsense in the paragraph as is. It original context of course was deleted to sabotage AAH further." I think the first sentence is true, but the second is hyperbole).
• Dominus Vobisdu replaces source and sentence again.
• CEngelbrecht removes

So my overall analysis is - the source almost certainly shouldn't be there, but the sentence it is attached to is long-standing, and appropriately summarizes the list of claims below. Note my revert to a previous version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The large majority of "fringe!" claims that I see are basically attempts to censor people who reject what their opponents deem to be what virtually everybody believes, and this is no different. Sanction CEngelbrecht for talk page blanking, with blocks as needed, and if he edit the article against consensus, a block for plain-and-simple disruptive editing will eventually be in order, but don't try to shut someone down for disagreeing with the majority. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that we "shut someone down for disagreeing with the majority". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that I'm not suggesting we lock the page or bar any from editing the page to include any reliable sources supporting the AAH (not that there are many - the scholarly community is essentially indifferent to it, though there are some recent scholars willing to accept water might have a role in human evolution, though this is a far cry from anything close to acceptance). My specific issue is editing the main page to include pointy edits that are borderline vandalism. I'm suggesting a topic ban for this editor, nothing more. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't deny being a "believer" in the AAH (in the current semiaquatic consensus by its proponents), in as much as I'm also a "believer" in ideas such as the heliocentric near-universe and the theory of evolution.

Understand, that my recent conduct (which at least is accurately summarized above) is not one I intend to keep up. It stems merely from utter frustration and indignation as to what I can only perceive as blatant censorship of the article in question. The censorship of this particular article is something I've noticed being rampant for several years now on Wiki, and it's nature is this: One, restrict any and all editing of the article, which would more accurately portray the so-called aquatic ape hypothesis, by consensus of AAH-proponents like Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan, Carsten Niemitz, Marc Verhagen et al, Algis Kuliukas, Stephen Cunnane et al, Erika Schagatay, Anna Gislén, Michel Odent, etc. Two, push for edits, which further represent the listed criticism against AAH (which isn't that much). And finally three, harass users which edit contrary to the two former.

By no means do I argue to not include the listed criticism of AAH, but the few written words against AAH are continously over-represented at the cost of allowing AAH's argumentation to be properly listed. At present, something to the extent of ten percent of the AAH-consensus is listed, and edits to expand it has been continously deleted for no valid reason, this also including imagery which illustrate arguments, e.g. a swimming human baby and a bipedally wading gorilla. Users aparently are not allowed to tell what the hell the aquatic ape hypothesis is! And if some users insist, I have for years seen them harassed through edit wars and false accusations of violating parts of the Wiki code; one example being reporting two users for being the same individual, even though a quick IP-check listed one as being in Perth and the other in frickin' Hong Kong! And from context it was obvious harassment of two users who dared being well-informed on this topic and willing to share that knowledge. And it had the desired effect; the two users fled further editing of this article, congratulations. This kind of harassment is unfortunately typical of this article and has been for years, and many users who could improve on the article are being harassed away by these censors.

There's another type of article that suffers similar harassment of users and edits, which would favor a better and more neutral presentation of a divisive idea; articles on ideas such as the theory of evolution. The difference being, that such ideas are in more focus by Wiki and therefore better protected by e.g. creationist-enclined users wishing to conduct an equal ammount of censorship against such articles, and probably for the same psychological reasons as these AAH-opponents (a strong desire for an idea to be utterly wrong, but without the capacity to argue that case easily). But due to AAH being currently stigmatized (to use a term by anthropologist Philip Tobias specifically on AAH) by the academic consensus, it is not protected against such behavior at all. At the least nowhere to the same degree. The Wiki powers-that-be doesn't care, 'cause it's probably wrong anyway, and therefore it doesn't really have to be protected against censors, that seems to be the dictum here.

My recent behavior must be seen in the above context. As an attempt to draw attention to the disruptive nature of the opponents of this fringe idea, whether they have a case against AAH or not. If I have irritated people by my edits, then you now know the feeling of trying to make a more encycopledic article here. Again, I have no intention of keeping this up, but I must protest against these censors any way I can, now that the Wiki-systems seemingly can't or won't stop them. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean. There is a reason we have discretionary sanctions in the area of fringe science/pseudoscience. If someone is dedicated to consistently violating WP:NPOV by trying to make the article have the POV of their pet fringe theory (CEngelbrect is a SPA) and removing criticism and the position of the mainstream then that editor disrupts genuine efforts to improve the article and should not be there. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for anything that violates the NPOV you speak of. On the contrary, I'm asking that it is followed, so we can get a proper encyclopedia entry on AAH. As such, the censoring made by obvious opponents to this fringe idea are the ones violating NPOV. And you can hardly argue, that I'm removing criticism or pursuing to present something, that isn't sourced. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support It's one thing being a believer in some fringe stuff, it's another thing trying to consistently insert a point of view into articles, or trying to get articles to make the fringe theory seem more accepted than it is. AAH is a very fringe theory, with about 5 or so key proponents with little to no academic uptake (i.e a Elaine Morgan a TV writer, turned AAH proponent). CEngelbrect is having issues because WP:NPOV would be that we portray the level of acceptance that it has, and we explain AAH in the context of the mainstream point of view. Note that this topic area, like all fringe science/pseudoscience is under discretionary sanctions, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

...and again, I am not arguing that CEngelbrecht be topic banned because of content issues - this is behavioural. If it were the continuous reinsertion of undue weight material, I would have brought this up on one of the content noticeboards. This is a behavioural issue affecting the actual main article, page blanking, sarcastic commentary and misrepresentation. If CEngelbrecht can't edit a page s/he disagrees with in accordance with the policies and guidelines, then s/he shouldn't be editing the page at all. I'm indifferent to people complaining on talk pages, when the edits are pointy and made to an actual article, that's where my patience runs out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor consistently inserting fringe advocacy into articles is a behavioural issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Five or so proponents, with no academic uptake? Try 20 to 40, depending on level of reservedness, this based on this attempted summary. And that list is not even complete.

Wolfie, you're arguing that I want to misrepresent the academic rejection of AAH. I'm not pursuing that at all, I understand that AAH is fiercely rejected both historically and contemporarily, and that in any version of the article, this must be properly presented. I'm not attempting to remove the relevant listed criticism, which I think should be clear from my attempted edits in general.

And I resent, that I shouldn't be interested in having a neutral presentation of this topic. I note, that you're not addressing the claimed problem of the actual hypothesis being severely short-described, and that close to all attempts to enhance that description is being met with what I can only perceive as censorship and user harassment. But maybe having a properly balanced presentation of this particular hypothesis is your idea of not being neutral? I don't see this kind of action necessary on articles about other fringe and pseudo ideas like cold fusion, creationism, bigfoot, Jesus bloodline and the like.

This is not an issue about whether anyone believes the damn thing is right or wrong. If the damn thing is wrong, it should be evident from a full presentation anyhow, especially when including the listed criticism. But my firm impression is that quite a many AAH-opponent isn't satisfied with even allowing that (which to me is like Darwin's bench of bishops, but whatever). And currently, Wiki is basically allowing them free reign to censor what ever they want, and have for several years. And now I have to rebel against that somehow, fringe or pseudo or academic stigmatization or no.

Again, this recent behavior is not one I desire to pursue further, it is simply an indignant attempt to draw attention to just how much is wrong with the general editing of this article. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What you have been doing, from what I have seen, is trying to insert what you perceive as convincing evidence for AAH, without the mainstream context: [71] etc. In essence you are here for advocacy, and are doing so in a disruptive fashion by warring and blanking the page etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, all I've been trying to do, along with a lot of other users who are scared off, is to better present the arguments being part of the AAH spectrum, as they appear in the sources. Aparently, you see that as advocating? Well, then we might as well blank the page, 'cause then the article aparently is not supposed to present what the hell this particular fringe is, in an article actually carrying its name. And how can I add the mainstream context, when for most of those elements, there is no mainstream context? --CEngelbrecht (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we're a lot more interested in how the arguments are presented in mainstream secondary sources. If there's no mainstream context, as you say, it's because mainstream scientists have not found anything in those arguements that is worth commenting on or examining further. And without mainstream context, it is impossible to assign WP:WEIGHT to fringe claims. Sorry, but, as you know, AAH proponents have been frustrated in their attempts to get their work published in real scientific outlets, and have turned to the blogosphere and WP to try to publicize their ideas and their self-published articles and books. That is not what WP is for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Aquatic ape hypothesis has been a battleground for years, between POV-pushers on both sides, with attempts at neutrality outnumbered or ignored. The hypothesis itself is a minority view, but it does not in any way contradict mainstream science in general, nor mainstream paleontology in general. The description "fringe" is better reserved for ideas which are really anti-scientific; its use here is unhepful and is usually effectively a POV-push. There are better ways of bringing out the undoubted fact that most paleoanthropologists dismiss the idea, and their reasons for doing so.

It would be possible to write an NPOV article, not provocative to either side. What is needed is:

• Assumptions of good faith and co-operation between editors of different opinions
• A high ratio of agreed fact to contentious material
• Neutral language for disputed views
• Even-handed criteria for acceptibility of sources

Any admin involvement here should be in the direction of trying to bring that about, and thus solve the underlying problem. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: length and level of disruption does not rise to that requiring a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think this "is a believer in the fringe..." is a totally inappropriate way to start the argument, it's simple ad hominem. Whether or not CEngelbrecht is "a believer" in the theory is his/her own business and is irrelevant. Whether or not it's a "fringe" theory is irrelevant. You cannot persecute a person because of their beliefs, you can't bully and cast aspersions on someone because they have a view that's "fringe", that is totally contrary to the scientific process of finding the truth. I think WL is trying to push his or her own viewpoint in this, and I think the article is really saturated with his repetitions of how the idea isn't accepted. Of course I do not advocate any vandalism of pages. "The description "fringe" is better reserved for ideas which are really anti-scientific; its use here is unhepful and is usually effectively a POV-push." ====> I agree with you that this is what the user WL is trying to suggest here. However just because something is "fringe" doesn't necessarily mean 'obviously untrue'. The word "fringe" doesn't carry any inherent pejoratives with it, if it did it wouldn't be a good word for an encyclopedia. I have little doubt that there are some fringe claims somewhere that are in fact true. Anonywiki (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have strong views [72] about the topic, but something with "20 to 40" participants, "depending on level of reservedness," is decidedly fringe. Noone has suggested blocking CEngelbrect because he believes in a fringe theory. To draw an analogy I, personally, have happily worked alongside astrologers editing the astrology articles, but then others are involved in advocacy and attempt to push their viewpoints in the articles in a disruptive fashion and that is where a line should be drawn. It is why we have discretionary sanctions in this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I had a problem with labelling it as fringe. I said that the fact that it's fringe or that he believes in the theory shouldn't be relevant. What you did seems perfectly fair, hopefully you would do the same if you were actively engaging in an article and people involved in evolutionary advocacy attempted to push their viewpoints on evolution in a disruptive fashion (and yes I do believe in evolution). edit: For purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter what any of us believe.Anonywiki (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who is !voting Oppose, can we at least agree that edits like this and this are serious enough to warrant a warning from the larger community? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Outing

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

---

By Tumbultaaron (talk · contribs), as here and on his own talk page. The policy on WP:OUTING indicates an immediate block, and that's what should happen here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this user is a newbie, I have only issued a warning. If he doesn't get the message, please let me know and I'll block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Gilabrand

Where do I begin? There are consistent revisions made by this user on the Israeli-Palestine articles that are either completely untruthful, misrepresent sources, ignore previous CDF discussions, or even blank information that doesn't agree with his/her political sensibilities:

• The most recent case is this deletion of source-cited information about the town of Al-Eizariya, deleted as "commentary":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Eizariya&diff=556773257&oldid=556745511

• Then, there is this instance where a source was factually misrepresented, and considering the sensitivity of the Israel/Palestine conflict, she/he can't simply write this off as a mistake I don't believe; I explain on her/his talk pagehere (along with a few other users pointing out this misuse of a source) how this is completely incorrect what he/her did.

• This instance here, where, rather than put a citation needed notice on the info, the information is wiped completely as "incomplete citation", despite the source being reachable.

• Here, he/she makes this edit to "delete commentary" yet the very next instance, This POV-pushing quote is inserted.

• Then there are numerous attempts at POV-pushing that I just can't ignore. It doesn't seem in good faith to me anymore. I and other users have asked nicely for him to watch his editing, yet still it continues. what can be done? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a longstanding problem. But you might have to file at AE, not ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

He was reported by you to AE already. However I would advise against it because filing such request would bring scrutiny of edits by Solntsa90, which they do not want. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It might well be true that SoIntsa90 doesn't want scrutiny -- but if so then scrutiny would likely be desirable. This sort of POV-pushing needs to be squashed aggressively, no matter what the POV is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand was indeffed earlier, but had her edit-priviledge re-installed, see here. Ever since she came back she has continued with falsehoods and misinformation. Example: [73] with edit-summary ce: "Two residents who had remained behind were executed by Israeli soldiers" becomes "Two villagers were killed in the operation", [74] with edit-summary "overlong caption" she removes the whole Palestinian history, and turn a Palestinian village ruin into "Crusader remains". She completely fabricated history at Hittin, in the lead, no less, see here: Talk:Hittin#1948-war. Her edits on Bassem al-Tamimi are analysed here: Talk:Bassem_al-Tamimi#Recent_edits. And here is a cute one [75]: she simply removes the Benny Morris-reference, so "The kibbutz was established on the land of a depopulated Palestinian village named Burayr" becomes "According to Arab historian Walid Khalidi, it was established on the land of a depopulated Palestinian village named Burayr." It is said that the more outrageous claims, the stronger the sources have to be. Alas, this is not a rule for Gilabrand! ..who gladly source massive killings and mutilations [76] to...a travel section, written by a tour guide[77]. I could go on..and on.... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don´t be fooled by a "nice" looking talk-page, Gilabrand is an expert archiver...archiving not the oldest, but things she doesn´t like. Huldra (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• So, I would suggest archiving this thread. This is not a proper place. AE would be, but the case was already there just a weak ago. I do not see any reason to bring this again. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disturbing threat

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

---

173.76.225.196 (talk · contribs), clearly the same individual as the other IP's vandalizing List of Subaru transmissions [78], posted this comment on the talk page of an editor who reverted their latest vandalism. I will be offline for a while, just thought I'd drop this one off before I go --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked, page protected, unsure whether to send an email to emergency@wikimedia. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sent email on the off chance this is credible. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 07:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

This wheel edit warring is tiring

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

---

User:Ego White Tray made a major deletionary edit to List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain, stating that "Most of the content in the beginning belongs in the main article Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain". I reverted and (justifiably angrily) stated that he was making bold deletionary content moves above and beyond the community consensus set in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive3 (not to mention the earlier ones), and that if he wanted to mass delete material he'd have to bloody well do it with some sort of consensus. He promptly brought to entire article to a highly spiteful FLR, but what's worse reverted my un-deletion; we've traded the usual wheel war crap since then. Now it seems to me that even to the lowest common denominator of Wikipedian manners such changes cannot and should not be made without discussion and an actual consensus - since he'd brought it to FLR that's where the circus will go. In the meantime I think it highly inappropriate that he and User:Vsmith continue to incessantly revert to the stripped down version of the article, and I want some sort of injunction from this board regarding such actions at least until the FLR discussion is brought to some sort of consensus. Sincerely, ResMar 23:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When you say 'wheel war', I'm assuming that you mean 'edit war'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. ResMar 23:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Bold revert discuss - I've done the third, while most of Mario's "discussion" has been in obscene edit summaries. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the edit warring going on by all sides in this. I must say I have to wonder why a list page contains so much of the content of the main article on the subject. Shouldn't a list page be, you know, a list and not a full article? The header to the list version of the article is fully 50% of the main article, which is approximately 48% too much in my view. The header for the list article should be simple, maybe a couple of lines. If it's important that all that content is included in the list article (and I don't see why it's needed especially when it's a copy and paste) then the two articles should just be merged into the master article. It's not as if the list is hundreds of entries long. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Qworty follow-up

I am not involved here, but there are on-going issues with the Qworty ban.  When I heard about this, I checked the user page, but the ban notice had been removed.  I would think it should be restored, but after reading the ban discussion, I'm not so sure.  The editor was blocked at the start of the discussion, which seems a highly inappropriate time for a block on an issue seven years old.  The discussion was closed early.  Many editors cited "sockpuppetry", but an examination of the recent SPI shows that there are no confirmed sockpuppets.  The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty/Archive archive page has received three edits and one of the edits has been reverted.  The initial link in the ban proposal claims to be an "on-wiki" link but contains an off-wiki URL.  I haven't read the entire ban proposal, but it doesn't seem to be written in a neutral style.  My specific concern here is that editors are using the archived SPI as if these were confirmed sockpuppets.  See, for example, [79].  Secondly, I think that ongoing edits on the SPI archive page need to be reverted or refactored.  Thirdly, if this editor is banned, I think the user page should be so marked.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• As I see it, the problem has more to do with issues related to CU than with Qworty. IIRC, stale puppets can't be linked by technical evidence, so the behavioral evidence is what counts here. Move to close... Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've worked the SPI case and closed the discussion on taggings, and have explained my rationale for closing with the current tags on my talk page in great detail. It was done with consensus and both side agreed afterwards, which is rare enough event, so I think we should leave well enough alone. As for the CU, I think I was pretty clear that I was unwilling to go back and make comparisons to the stale socks simply because it was a waste of time to spend a full day comparing edits to users that haven't edited in 8 years. The only person who made a claim that they were connected was the filing party. No CU or clerk indicated there was any merit (or lack of merit) in the case. The CUs clearly indicated they saw no technical evidence of socking, which doesn't rule it in or out, but CU isn't magic pixie dust. I'm all for consensus, and the current state is within consensus, so I think closing is the best choice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Many editors are rightfully confused when it comes to the quality of the statment, "No CU or clerk indicated there was any merit (or lack of merit) in the case." While I understand how this works, and that it applies primarily to technical evidence, behavioral evidence alone may indicate that there is merit in the case. I'm afraid what we have here are cases where a clerk (and the CU themselves) don't have the time to properly investigate. From all accounts, it seems very, very unlikely that the socks were created by someone other than Qworty, so claiming that there is no merit in this case appears to be an effort to indirectly dismiss the behavioral evidence while at the same time throwing out the technical evidence which cannot be confirmed because it is stale. I'm afraid that many editors, including myself, do not find this satisfactory. Qworty was proven to have used socks many years ago, and for some reason, was still allowed to edit. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• The resources at SPI are not infinite. The standard to conduct an investigation is based on the likelihood that the investigation will prevent future disruption. Linking many, many accounts that haven't edited in up to 8 years provides nothing in the way of preventing disruption. A CU was run and they found no sleepers or current socks. That doesn't mean there isn't, just that they weren't obvious. Simply put: if I blocked all those old accounts, or if I did nothing to those old accounts, the net result would be the same, so I'm not inclined to spend several hours investigating if the net result is exactly the same. Now, if they start editing again, I'm on them like white on rice, and we have a record in the archives. CU's have a record of him now (and I bet they wrote it down somewhere...) so it will be easy to match anything he does in the future. But using SPI just to prove someone "right" and deliver zero benefit? You will hard pressed to find a clerk or CU to spend that time. We are backlogged, so that would mean a current disrupting sock would have more time to cause problems while we were investigating something that makes no difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• My personal opinion of having to deal with the SPI process is that the underlying problem isn't the backlog or the lack of resources. I've already acknowledged the problem with resources in my original statement, so I'm not clear why you've repeated it. The issue I have is that clerks and CU don't seem to listen very well. There is no probable reason to suspect that these accounts belong to anyone other than Qworty. That is good reason enough to block them. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• If I repeat, it is only to make my own position clear and complete. I can not block unless I investigate, I can't just take your word or anyone else's word for it. To do so is an abuse of the tools, plain and simple. Since those accounts aren't editing, the block makes no difference. I left it in the archive so you, me and anyone else can go back periodically and make sure those accounts aren't starting back up. If they do, then it would justify a CU. I am pretty sure that if he socks, he won't use those accounts anyway, he will create new socks. Blocking accounts that I know aren't going to edit is a pointless exercise that requires a great deal of time to do, assuming I do it within policy, and that is the only way I can. You are welcome to ask someone else to block them, I won't take offense, but I'm pretty strict about blocking: If I'm not sure, I don't block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, in the time you've taken to respond here, you could have investigated the original complaint on the SPI page for yourself. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Being snide doesn't make you right. I spent more time determining that the case was too old than I have here. I type fast. You underestimate how long an investigation takes if it is done properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Most of these accounts are single use and have few contribs. It would take you ten minutes to investigate. If CU and clerks aren't going to bother, then we need to find users who will. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I told you, you can ask any other clerk or CU and I won't be offended, or better yet: Get any CU to tell me it is good idea, I will do it. I don't think they will agree it is a good use of resources, but if I'm wrong, I will do it and do it right. Remember, each and every block I make I have to be able explain my rationale for and demonstrate that any other admin would have done the same. Blocking is the admin action we are most accountable for. This is why I don't do it sloppily or when based only on hearsay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing stopping you from investigating the report right now. Do we need to keep relying on expertise outside this site to get things done? What is stopping you from looking at the report? I'm getting the distinct sense that admins, clerks, and CU no longer want to help improve and protect this site. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

He clearly explained why he can't do what you demand. Making unfounded accusations against admins and clerks does not strengthen your case. Quite the opposite, actually. Either find another admin who is willing to block accounts that haven't edited in years, post an RfC to try to get consensus for blocking accounts that haven't edited in years, or behave in such a way that you can eventually pass an RfA and do it yourself (Free Clue: making unsubstantiated accusations less than a week after coming off a block for persistently making unsubstantiated accusations works against that last one working for you...).

An editor has expressed concern that this thread contains too little drama.
Please help add more drama to this thread. When enough drama has been added, please change the name of this noticeboard to Wikipedia:Drama board for people who don't have enough conflict going on in their lives and need to create more of it to give their lives some semblance of meaning and purpose.

I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• comment Those interested are welcome to join at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up. There are ~2400 articles to vet, so we need help from experienced editors. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, he didn't clearly explain anything except to pass the buck. I stand by every word I've said and your threats are meaningless to me. If you feel that I deserve a block for observing that most admins do nothing and most of our admins are inactive, then go ahead and block me. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to impose a block on you for stating your opinion, I don't see that anyone was even implying that. As for blocking old inactive accounts, an admin could take the time to investigate it as you request, but some/most admins have a lot of other things, other than wiki, to do, so their time here is valuable; not to imply your request is unimportant. Granted, in the time it took to have this long conversation, someone could have done the research, but then they would be ignoring the active discussion and not able to provide an answer. The answer the admin that did reply gave was (paraphrasing), they have a strict policy on blocking...does not see sufficient evidence to block...maybe another admin will be able to do so. I'm quite sure if you follow the proposed avenues provided, another admin might have the time to review your request. I do not see this as passing the buck or being a lazy admin, not all admins are familiar with all policies, which are constantly evolving, and all of us have our own reasons for imposing a block within the guidelines. I believe every admin that monitors this page takes it very seriously and performs what tasks they can and tries to respond to all requests, such as this one. No one should really ask much more than that. «»Who?¿? 04:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I simply listed every possible avenue that has any chance at all of getting you what you want. I then pointed out that one of the possible avenues (you becoming an admin and doing it yourself) would require behavior changes on your part. Nobody has threatened to block you. Here are some hints for correctly identifying any such threat; first, it should contain wording like "or you will be blocked". Second, it must come from someone with the power to block you -- I don't have that power and would reject it if it was offered.

Please read my post again. Those are the only ways open to you to get what you want. Further complaints here will not change that. Pick one and follow it, or give up. BTW, there is a difference between "he didn't clearly explain anything" and "he gave a clear answer, but I am not willing to accept the answer". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't. NE Ent 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocking long stale accounts would be simply pointy and punitive and not improve Wikipedia in any way. Yes, Qworty abused the wiki system for his own petty real world pissing contest and it angers me as much as the next Wikipedian, but punishment and "heads on pikes" and the like is not who we are, and does not promote a welcoming environment that maximizes the number of folks willing to edit.

While I understand and support DB's action in the talk page blanking, an unfortunate side effect is that it buried this comment, which is one of the better things I've read around here in a while:

Speaking as the admin who blocked Qworty in the first place; Qworty's crime, as it were, was to break our moral demand to protect living people - the principle that they will be treated neutrally, not defamed, and not targeted. Qworty broke this ideal, repeatedly, and has been punished for it to the greatest degree the community can punish someone - but Qworty is himself a living person, both in the sense that he has an article and in the sense that he has a birth certificate. We do ourselves no favours tolerating a witchhunt and a denigration of people based on our personal beliefs as to the virtue or malice behind their acts; endorsing and engaging in that attitude is something that easily bleeds over into the articlespace. We do not engage in punitive justice. We do not act to provide 'a warning to the others'. We treat people with equality and we treat people with consideration. Qworty, whatever he has done, is still a person. If you want to spite him, don't spite him by elevating him to the Wikipedia equivalent of the Duchies of Hell. Don't make him the boogie-monster under the bed. Spite him by affording him the protection that is the right of every living person we encounter - the right that he denied to others: the right to be treated without prejudice. Spite him by being better than him.
— User:Ironholds

NE Ent 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of consideration and all that jazz: is it just me who is irked by the very short lead of his biography saying that he "was blocked from Wikipedia" as basically his main accomplishment in life? [80] 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh. That's actually the most intelligent analysis of a controversial issue here that I've read in a while. Can we go turn that into its own little page or something, à la WP:TIGERS? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Better yet, let's turn it into practice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Ent's/Ironholds' analysis over the situation, and also agree with the IP that the lead is inappropriate (and is also very poorly written to boot), but I won't remove the text because that'll start another crap-throwing-fest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with En'ts analysis, and Ironholds' comments have little to no bearing on the topic under discussion so I have no idea why it is has been raised. Blocking long stale accounts that are directly connected to this sock master helps editors connect the dots when they are looking at the contributions of editors linked to related page histories. When I'm doing research on a particular set of prose to see who added it, or when I'm trying to track down content problems, I often click on the user page of the editor responsible for the edits to either ask them a question or bring an issue to their attention. By not blocking these accounts or linking them to Qworty on their user pages, we are doing a major disservice to our editors and our readers. It is this kind of institutional ignorance that I strongly object to here, as it serves no purpose other to confuse people and to pass the buck to someone else. We need to do the legwork and we need to connect the dots to these other accounts. I disagree with virtually every argument made that says we should just leave them alone. No, that's not right, and it doesn't provide any closure. People are asking why weren't these accounts blocked, why didn't admins do anything, and we need to be able to say, we did something, and here it is. Unfortunately, we have the same people saying "let's not do anything" once again. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• My two questions in this regard are, (1) given the SPI backlog, why is this case not still in the backlog, and (2) given that CU confirmed two socks, why are User:Geri Litton and User:Tuscan Doges still unblocked?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Suspected" socks

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Qworty clean-up continues to include "list of suspected socks" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Qworty clean-up#Useful links.  I don't see how we can have it both ways.  Either a process on Wikipedia confirms that there are socks, or the clean-up project needs to drop the idea of considering "suspected" socks.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Where's the problem? The project just want review their edits, if they are fine they will remain, if they are bad they will be fixed, no care if the "suspected" socks were real socks or just genuine users with similar patterns. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then they are not "suspected" socks anymore.  Perhaps, "previously suspected socks"?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Cavarrone. There is no problem here. Accepting Unscintillating's complaint would involve drastic changes in the whole way we deal with sockpuppets and suspected sockpuppets, and that's not going to happen, at least not for these reasons. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

edits on the SPI archive

• This is still not resolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want the SPI to be reviewed, you need to request it from a checkuser. Sockpuppetry is not determined by consensus at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not following what you thought that I said.  I went ahead and restored the archive.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious sockpuppetry can be determined by consensus, and since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, we don't need to even use CU. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is unresolved again, diff.  Can someone take a look at this?  This archive is getting a lot of eyes right now.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is already being monitored and I've EC'ed while trying to revert. To be clear: Archives should only be edited by clerks (or Checkusers) whose jobs is solely to do these tasks, per WP:SPI. Modification of archives by others can and will be reverted by anyone who notices. If someone wants to add new information, it must be in the form of a new report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

banning notice missing on the user page

• Is it the consensus here that I need to take this to AN?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of consensus, but was dictated by the admin doing the edit. (See the edit summary.) So go for it if it really bothers you. I tend to agree that a block notice should be there, as it is with most other blocked users. There should be no favoritism. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was already discussed. See [81]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• There was some confusion in that discussion. Some wanted total blanking. Others wanted Qworty's content blanked, but the block notices left in place. Others, including User:Drmies wanted blanking of Qworty's content, but had nothing against leaving the block notices and the helpful links I had added (he said that twice), and he locked it in that state. Then you blanked it all and left the "courtesy blanking" note. Unfortunately everyone in the discussions was using the word "blanking" with different meanings and it ended up getting totally blanked by you without a clear consensus. The only clear consensus was for blanking of Qworty's content. We did the public a disservice and contributed to possible confusion in the press. Whatever. I know better than to oppose an admin and have just accepted the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was a compromise based on the consensus view, with each side getting most of what they wanted. Afterwards, people from both sides agreed it was a reasonable compromise and no one argued against it. You can't have a more clear consensus than when both sides agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't accept this situation, and the claim that "no one argued against it" is inherently fallacious. We are and have been arguing against it since the day you implemented it. Please don't point us to that old discussion again. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The topic of the discussion was "User:Qworty's talk page protection", and the only comments about the notices (1) seemed to assume that something would remain on the User page, and (2) that any discussion about the User page should take place on AN.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• We don't need to change venues; the discussion is fine right here. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have politely explained in great detail my handling of the SPI and the ANI closing at the original discussion, here and on my talk page [82], which more than meets the requirement of WP:ADMINACCT, so further dialog from me seems pointless. I will leave this to others to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Getting back to the ban notice on the user page, I have reviewed the discussion on Dennis's talk page, and there is explicit support from one person for the banned template.  Dennis replies that being banned should be "obvious" if the page is blanked.  This is exactly why I am here, because when I saw the blanked page, I was not able to know if the editor was banned, and it was possible or even likely that he was no longer banned.  Another comment I heard about this is that editors can find out if an editor is banned by searching on WP:LOBU.  I think the template is simpler.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal RFC to restore the banned template on the user page

Resolved

 – by note in block log

• Support  Unscintillating (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• There is no point as people can see he is still indeffed in the block log and it isn't demanded under policy. At best an admin should note in the block log that he has been formally banned as this was not done.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• So reblock and include in the notice that the user is site-banned?  That would work for me.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Here is how the contributions link currently appears, [83].  Unscintillating (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I swore that I was walking away, but here I am since this is easy to solve. I've noted the ban in the block log, something I would have done if simply asked. As for the SPI, that still needs to be handled via WP:SPI or through any checkuser. ANI isn't a sockpuppet investigation board, it is an incident board, ill suited to the task. I understand there is a lot of heat around this editor which is why I chose to handle the case as I knew nothing of him and had no strong feelings, thus confident I could be objective and treat him like we should any other editor. Not for his benefit, but for ours. For the record, Ironholds was exactly right in his rather profound statement. Our "revenge" is to be better than him, and to treat him as fairly as any other person. This is why the compromise was struck based on our normal method of consensus. This is why the SPI was handled exactly the same as any other massively stale SPI case would be. In a consensus community, some will always disagree with the outcome, this is expected, but it really is time to move on. It is fine if the experience makes us wiser, but it shouldn't change who we are as a community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also don't see the point. I wonder if anyone who goes there now anyways wouldn't know that he's already been banned. Ansh666 07:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Grimson needs eyes

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

---

Can there please be more administrator eyes on this article and its talk page. Tumbultaaron (talk · contribs) (already warned about outing in the section above [84]) had been repeatedly attempting to insert BLP violations in this article. He then tried twice to use the talk page for the same purpose [85], [86], allegedly to answer a question from another SPA. The material was removed twice per BLP by another editor. Tumbultaaron then restored the question, but not the answer [87]. A "new" editor Macgovern1 (talk · contribs) registered an account shortly thereafter and with their first edit, re-added the material to the talk page as an "answer" to the question [88]. I have removed both the question and the answer and left an explanation. But I fear this will not be the end of it. Note that with their second edit, Macgovern1, added a BLP violation to the BLPN noticeboard [89] (also removed). Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Both editors informed [90], [91]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:184.91.36.102 and American Idol (season 12)

An IP editor uses the address of 184.91.xx.xxx has been biased over on a sourced controversy on Angie Miller's most shocking elimination and the section has removed nine times, the latest was [92]. Well, well, well, the shocking elimination is sourced through all media. Then, I checked in the season's talk page and made me that I'm an "Angie fan" claiming to be a personal attack page. [93] ApprenticeFan ^work 08:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation; 'controversy' suggests something that caused anger and hurt in regards to something, and not an elimination from a reality show. Can I suggest using the term 'surprise elimination' instead? The conflict about this seems to come down solely to that one word, and reading the actual text like Kree "won" the vote (impossible; she just got more votes) and in the end Angie saying she was OK with the two finalists suggests something very far from controversy; if the contestant got angry over the results it would be different, but that's not the case at all. Remembering that episode it was pretty obvious that either way, one group of fans wasn't going to be happy their favorite was going to be eliminated based on the results. Not knowing the situation fully I can't observe more than that, but a lot of reality 'controversies' in the end seem more blown up than they actually turned out in reality. Also for easier reference, the text removed by 184.91 is in this edit. Nate • (chatter) 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The removed content looks like it could use some toning down (to remove the gossip-ish tone) but it is cited and it should not be deleted en masse. Also, as User:Nate has said it's not a controversy, its just reporting an event that happened ie an elimination with some commentary from the press if appropriate. Lastly, if an IP has removed it 9 times an Admin should give the IP a strong warning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies keeps saying that I'm Xenophrenic (or his sock-puppet)

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

---

At Wikipedia_talk:/Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic, most recently in this diff despite my best good faith efforts to prove otherwise. Can perhaps a check-user settle this matter? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Our privacy policy prohibits checkusers from disclosing who's using what IP addresses. This is often taken to absurdity — they won't even mention the IPs of people who are long-, long-term vandals and other problem-causers, even if it would make it easier to stop them — so I can't imagine them saying anything about Xenophrenic's IP address. I'm sorry. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

But what about which IP addresses Xenophrenic has not been using? I strongly doubt Xenophrenic has ever edited from my ISP or even my country. I cannot point to a concrete discussion right now, but I recall vaguely that people editing from different continents is sometimes considered good evidence of them not being one and the same. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And are you sure about that rule? What about this recent comment? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThinkEnemies/Archive, it appears that the suspected former account of ThinkEnemies, User:Libertas, was found by ArbCom to be guilty of "making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry" among other things. That behavior appears to be repeating here. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is more interesting is that this brand-new editor has managed to do so much research on Wikipedia in so little time. [94] the very first edit made a sock accusation, Fourth edit was to ask for a desysop. Then an immediate gravitation to the ArbCom poposed decision at [95] et seq. And already has a block from Rschen for "block evasion." Now he says he has been around for "years" but I fear it is equally likely that this person does have an account name registered in the past. More is not coming from the Ouija board other than there is more here than what the OP averred. Collect (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This "[not] brand-new" BS again? My first comment on the TP affair was way back in Feb [96], and I've been keeping an eye on the case since then. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK - you have another IP address going back all of three months -- and that does not appear to be your first incarnation judging by your ANI posts with that one, showing expertise in noticeboards and researching other editors. I rather think you have had others, and it would be nice now to know them, as otherwise my comments stand as strong as ever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And how does that prove that I'm Xenophrenic? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this was another fool's errand, like the task that ThinkEnemies asked me to do, only to dismiss it immediately thereafter, but the first edits of mine I can find are Special:Contributions/86.105.136.92, although I have made some before that. How does that help in any way? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

When a brand new editor shows up and is very active in contentious areas in a wiki-expert way, it seem implausible to think that they are not somebody else. But I see no strong reason to think that it's Xenophrenic. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like this? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this? †TE†Talk 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno your point here -- TE's first dramaboard edit was in response to a post from User:Scribner. And not when he first posted on Wikipedia or registered his username. What precisely did you intend by your comment? Collect (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"a brand new editor shows up and is very active in contentious areas in a wiki-expert way". That's how I would describe the edits I linked there. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP address with any history on these noticeboards is highly suspect. Showing other IP addresses you've edited under doesn't address the underlying issue of sockpuppetry. I find it hard to believe you don't have an account used to edit semi-protected pages. †TE†Talk 15:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Another baseless allegation. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread was started as "User:ThinkEnemies keeps saying that I'm Xenophrenic" and the IP editor in question is complaining about baseless accusations of sockpuppetry; ThinkEnemies has indisputably implied that IP 5.12.68.204 is actually Xenophrenic trying to sockpuppet in an RfC/U. In this comment, ThinkEnemies suggests that signing comments with "Regards, (user)" as the IP has done is uniquely Xenophrenic, a "trademark". The IP disagrees. ThinkEnemies responds with "Alright Xenophrenic..." and asks for examples of other Wikipedians who sign their posts with "Regards, (user)". The IP complies with the request. ThinkEnemies responds with "Classic overcompensation. I do appreciate the effort, Xeno". Obviously, a checkuser request is not going to be carried out here because it would create a privacy invasion situation with regard to Xenophrenic. That being said, rather than cast further aspersions on the IP, does anyone here care to put the real issue to rest? Is it acceptable for ThinkEnemies to keep sarcastically implying that Xenophrenic is sockpuppeting in an RfC/U? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what exactly are you suggesting be done to put the real issue to rest? All I did was use the IP's convenient appearance with intricate knowledge of the real issue to illustrate how Xenophrenic often benefits from these odd occurrences. At least the way I remember it. †TE†Talk 16:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"What you did" is plainly evident in the diffs. What I'm suggesting is that you stop sarcastically accusing the IP of being Xenophrenic on the Talk Page; better yet, strike your comments there if you want to make amends. If you really think sockpuppetry is taking place, please start a Sockpuppet Investigation. You have a history there yourself so I assume you're familiar with how to do that. Cool with you? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've never been accused of sock puppetry, thus unfamiliar. I had an alternative account suspended, but that was collateral damage from a shared IP address. MookieG did well as certain people around here have trouble getting past their animosity others. Though, it wasn't long until Mookie clashed with some of the more tenacious editors on this site. Speaking of Xenophrenic, a simple denial would suffice. He's been active since my aspersions were cast. †TE†Talk 17:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if you do not abbreviate Xenophrenic's username, as we have a well-known user:Xeno -- Dianna (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice Parthian shot [97]. I think this can be closed now. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great news, IP address. I'm tickled pink that this can be closed now. I was a bit perturbed when you started harrassing that checkuser to look open the books from 2 years ago. You know who else became convinced I was Party Joe? This guy. †TE†Talk 20:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The check-user here evidence found that you, User:PartyJoe and User:MookieG have used the same IPs. You admit that MookieG was you. MookieG and PartyJoe have (coincidentally?) edited a good number of pages in common, including Coffee Party USA and D. C. Douglas and Hutaree and Tea Party protests. Both MookieG and PartyJoe have made nonconstructive edits, like [98] or [99]. (That's a lot more evidence than you have presented about me being the same as Xenophrenic, by the way.) But an esteemed check-user took your word for it that you were not editing as PartyJoe. Did I get anything wrong? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:SOCK violation on Queen of Sheba

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

---

Hello.

A user by the name of Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) keeps reverting and re-adding superfluous/inaccurate information to this articles without discussing it. I tried to talk to the user on their page, but they completely ignored me, and just continued to revert (they did leave this edit summary though - rv; IP did leave me a note that he reverted because it is "better" not to state Hebrew Bible, without elaborating or persuading why they think it is "better").

That issue aside, it seems Til Eulenspiegel is using a sockpuppet to edit back to that revision. Crachapreto (talk · contribs) showed up right after the most recent revert, and changed it back to TilEulenspigel's preferred version. That new user had very few edits apart form that one which leads me to suspect a sockpuppeteer.

What do you think? Is this sufficient evidence to start an investigation on the appropriate page, or should i give him/her the benefit of the doubt?

Cheers. 58.165.75.85 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not use sockpuppets. However I do find your behaviour extremely problematic since you are aggressively and rapidly spamming my talkpage with statements like you don't want to start an edit war over whether or not Wikipedia uses the phrase "Hebrew Bible" (as on hundreds of other articles), while simultaneously you are starting an edit war over that very question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that "Hebrew Bible" is the correct term to use in the "Christian Interpretation" section rather than "Old Testament". If you cannot prove this, it must be removed. Cheers. 58.165.75.85 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here, could I just request semi-page protection on Queen of Sheba, as it is becoming more and more apparent that the IP editor is WP:NOTHERE? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, keep side stepping the discussion. You won't address the issue because you know it is entirely incorrect to use the term "Hebrew Bible" in that specific section. 58.165.75.85 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Please help

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

---

Please take a look here. I have posted the message at 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC) but still did not get any help. - 117.199.181.151 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• We can not do that. We can not know if you are the same user. If you want to disable a wikibreak enforcer, you disable javascript in your browser, then log in and remove it yourself, then reenable javascript in your browser. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem. I am not able to do that. Even when I am disabling all Java plugins and addons, it's still logging me out. Do one thing. Send me an email and I will reply to you confirming that it's me who is requesting those particular codes to be deleted. Or delete those codes for 10 mins. I will login and post a message on your talk page confirming that it's me. If you get no reply then just undo the deletion. - 117.199.181.151 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not Java that you need to disable, it's Javascript. (They're totally different, despite the name.) What browser do you use? We can give you more detailed instructions if we know that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox - 117.199.181.151 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the instructions provided at the Mozilla support website. -- Dianna (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh god thanks! It worked. Thank you all for taking your time to help me. - Jayadevp13 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Another way is to go to another WM site – such as Commons – and ask an WP-admin over there. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Ordeerligg

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

---

Obvious troll is obvious: [100] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Martinevans123 claiming living people guilty of crime before conviction or trial

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

---

I am writing regarding the editing behavior of Martinevans123 in the requested move disucssion taking place at 2013 Woolwich attack. I noticed that the editor made a comment stating that certain living individuals were guilty of the crime. I politely responded that we cannot do that, even on a talk page. In our exchanges, I fully cited BLP policy. Please read our exchange beginning at 23:08, 25 May 2013. As you'll see, the editor has pushed the envelope a bit further with each subsequent comment in terms of stating that these individuals are guilty of the crime (before there has been a conviction, or even a trial). Please read the first six words of Martinevans' most recent reply to me; it's as blatant a BLP violation as there can be. Even though I have shown the editor the relevant BLP policies on this issue, he will not stop posting similar, additional comments. I initially thought he was well-intentioned and simply wasn't aware of the relevant BLP policies, and therefore would just self-redact. But apparently, that is not the case. With regard to the BLP issue itself (not the editor's behavior), I notified the BLP noticeboard. The last thing I wanted to do was bring this matter to AN/I because I assumed it would easily be resolved with the editor directly. But it appears that s/he wants to continue adding to the problem with each additional talk page reply. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have asked me to stop? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Our policies don't require conviction or trial, only statements from reputable sources. In this case such statements are obviously present in great abundance. Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Is policy exactly clear now, on this matter, following the "discussion" at the BLP noticeboard? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (p.s. the editor concerned, who has a user name, is a he, apparently.)

Martinevans, I think our exchange on the talk page will make clear to anyone that I not only wanted you to stop, but that I wanted your BLP-violating comments to be redacted. Sadly, I thought initially that you were a friendly, well-intentioned editor, who simply was unaware of the BLP rules. But then you posted your additional replies, when unfortunately made me look at things differently. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the correct forum for this discussion was my Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martinevans, you and I discussed it multiple times, on the article's talk page. You made your intentions clear with each reply. Looie496, you are simply incorrect. Our policies do in fact clearly require a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME says, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Therefore, saying the first six words of this comment by Martinevans is not allowed, nor are any of the similar comments said prior to it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I am being made out to be "unfriendlly" or not "well intentioned". And I am still unsure also why no-on else on that Talk Page, who has suggetsed that "murder" is appropriate for the article title, has not been "taken to task"! in this way. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, Looie, yes we do. Whilst there is no doubt that the two were the perpetrators of the killing, we cannot actually say they are "guilty of murder" until convicted. For all we know, at trial they may claim diminished responsibility. Unlikely, but not impossible. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically that's perfectly true. But I am quite prepared to repeat my view of this incident here, based on what I have read in that article and seen in the press. And I would gladly repeat such a statement in a court of law if the need ever arose. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the article doesn't even say that they killed Rigby (unless I missed it). Now, Martin on the talk page is saying that they gave a press conference in which they admitted it, but I don't see that in the article, and Martin didn't provide a source on the talk page. All of that is aside from your comment, BK, about "murder", which is a legal term. Even if they admitted killing, it doesn't mean they are guilty of murder, and yet Martin keeps using that term. As BLP talk page violations go, though, I'm not sure it's the end of the world, and I doubt it's worthy of bringing here, particularly as it didn't grab much attention at BLPN. Still, I would remove it from the talk page. It doesn't advance the conversation much, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

BBB23, maybe Martin has seen press coverage that has clouded his judgement? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, the conversation is about an appropriate title for that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the point really. Whilst I don't believe anyone commenting on that page actually believes that the pair didn't murder Rigby, the question is what is the best title. A secondary point is the technical one; whether an article should be titled "Murder of..." before an actual murder conviction has been secured. I don't think we;ve ever done that before, although I could be wrong - this is obviously an unusual case because we have video evidence of what happened, unlike 99% of crimes. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, BK, you'd be surprised how often there is video evidence of a crime. Of course, that video evidence is normally evaluated by a jury, not by Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martin, if you're going to make a negative statement about a BLP on the talk page that isn't already covered in the article itself, you should at least provide a source. So, if you have one, do so. How can anyone evaluate your comments otherwise? I know what the discussion is about, but that doesn't justify the comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would ask that we stay focused on why we're here. This AN/I discussion is not about that article's title; it's solely about an editor making claims, as legal fact, that certain living individuals are guilty of the crime. Thanks, Bbb23 regarding your points... to be clear, this issue is beyond just a talk page violation, it's about BLP policy itself. The BLP section "Where BLP does and does not apply" makes clear that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And do you think there is no difference between these areas? A breach at one place is equally serious as at any other? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if we are "beyond just a talk page violation, it's about BLP policy itself", then why am I here? This is just a test-case for BLP, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this, Martinevans. This is about your editing behavior and disregard of clear BLP policies. You repeatedly added similar comments after you were nicely spoken to about it and presented with the relevant BLP policies. One must wonder why you would choose this course of action. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• They have video footage of the man explaining why they killed the guy. If he didn't want his name to be linked to the crime, he wouldn't be hanging around giving interviews about it later on. This isn't one of those cases you have to be worried about someone suing claiming slander, or which has the slightest chance of being found anything but guilty. And did they confess to being guilty when the police showed up, or decide to plead innocence even after confessing in front of a video camera earlier that day? Dream Focus 23:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can't anyone provide a source for this? And you refer to "the man"; Martin said that both men murdered Rigby. Is it one man explaining or both? And even if such "evidence" exists, a possible solution to the BLP issue would be for Martin to use the word "kill" instead of "murder".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • There are two issues, whether Lee was murdered, and who is alleged to have done that. Discussing whether to call the article "Murder of Lee Digby" is different to saying "X did it." when X has not been convicted. The two current suspects could be found not guilty for any number of reasons. Also wikipedia claiming they are guilty, even in talk could influence any trial they may have.Martin451 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Byline from The Guardian: Michael Adebolajo had been a peaceful, if radical, placard-waving figure on Woolwich's high street. What, then, prompted his involvement in the horrific acts witnessed last week? .

Also, a selection of front pages. Note bottom right of image: "WE KILLED THIS SOLDIER! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Jamie Doward writes: "The small library of video footage recorded by passersby may throw light on the men's conflicted state of mind in the immediate aftermath of Drummer Lee Rigby's murder." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I read that line. And that's the "evidence" you're hanging your hat on?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't find the Guardian helpful. Nor do I find a bunch of tabloid front pages helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry you don't find the Guardian "helpful" - is it a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we don't attempt to build a case against the suspects ourselves, based on third-hand reporting from the gutter press? I'd hate for WP to be implicated in a contempt of court case, or to cause a mistrial. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've all read and seen the media coverage. Please, let's stay focused. This AN/I discussion is not at all about whether there was a murder, it's about an editor making statements, as fact, about who committed the murder. We are editors of an encylopedia, not a newspaper. We have very vital rules about what we say about living people, including in talk page discussions. WP:BLPCRIME and "Where BLP does and does not apply" are unambiguous about these matters. Are we going to follow them? This is about Wikipedia's integrity and the behavior of an editor who is snubbing their nose at the policies? –76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the material from the talk page. It should not be restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Threats and anti-semitic slurs made by User:Sallieparker against me

• User:Sallieparker made the following comments, which include several anti-semitic slurs and implicit threats ("Eh, boychik?" and "Marxist"; "I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") over this editor's attempts at whitewashing the Joseph Breen page. I am not going to deny that I responded in measured but colorful language but as far as I know making a blatant threat ("I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") against another editor is grounds for, at minimum, a lengthy block.

• • 1) "It is concerning to me..." Your comment was not adequately referenced at all, let alone "fully referenced." Eh, boychik?
  • 2) And WHO are you, exactly, "Quis separabit?", other than a contentious little anti-Catholic Marxist?
  • 3) Yes, please do "monitor" my edits, and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!

Quis separabit? 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• • The entire thread being cited above appears on the users talk page and can be seen here. In my opinion, these are inappropriate comments and Sallie would do well to strike them and refrain from such comments in the future. Quis separabit? should also watch him/herself and avoid Sallieparker's user page and stick to content only comments on the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like an editor that is crossing the line with aggressive accusations of bad faith. See, for example, THIS exchange with Richard Jensen. More of the same ominous "We'll be watching" bullshit... Carrite (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And HERE we have the editor white-washing sourced material documenting anti-semitism with an ultra-aggressive edit summary, although THIS from the New York Times makes it pretty clear that the sourced information was actually correct. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO

I am bringing this matter here after being advice at WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that WP:ANI was the proper place to discuss how to deal with various WP:Canvassing issues (Inappropriate Notification such as Spamming and Campaigning, i.e., presenting the topic in a non-neutral manner), templates and discussions:

• At 21:54 May 24 User:Srich32977 posted RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed? after edit warring on Hans-Hermann Hoppe over a change of the title from "Academic freedom controversy" to "Controversies over views on homosexuality. (Section here)
• Starting at 22:21 May 24 User:SPECIFICO posted the first of ten posts to 10 Wikiprojects entitled: "RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section)". (See his contributions list). These included LGBT studies, Sexology and sexuality, Human rights, Universities, Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. (Note that User:SPECIFICO had chastised me here for one neutral notice of an AfD on one wikiproject just a few days before so he was well aware of the policy.)
• At 23:23 May 24 I opened a "Comment" section on the RfC complaining about the canvassing.
• At 23:26 May 24, after consulting WP:Canvassing, I put the canvassing template on User:SPECIFICO's talk page and asked him to fix the notices. User:Specifico has not answered despite editing actively since.
• Starting at 10:26 May 25 User:Srich32977 changed all ten RfC Wikiproject notices to the actual name of the RfC.
• 11:29 May 25, after consulting WP:Canvassing again, I put up the Template:Canvassed (for expressing a concern that a user was canvassed to a discussion) on the two editors who came while User:SPECIFICO's original posting still was up. I later put it on another editor who had been individually contacted by User:SPECIFICO.

I did not intend to make a canvassing complaint about this at WP:ANI but to make it part of a larger WP:BLPN notice I'm putting together about repeated violations, except for two developments:

1. User:User:Srich32977 and User:Wikiwind (who replied to the RfC) have repeatedly removed and/or hidden either the templates and the "Canvassing concerns" subsection. WP:Canvassing gives no real guidance on what to do once you put in the template, or about mentioning canvassing in an RfC, but I assumed regular talk page rules for editor's comments and templates applied (i.e, do not remove til issues settled). I did ask for guidance on the WP:Canvass talk page but didn't expect any over the weekend. Thus when the problem continued and User:Wikiwind threatened to bring me to WP:ANI I went to WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where an editor advised the matter be brought here.

2. Six editors showed up at the RfC saying it should be changed to the title preferred by User:SPECIFICO. One editor had a non-related proposal. That many responses on one side of an issue on a long weekend just seems excessive.

At the very least, I would like to see a recommendation that this RfC be voided because of the canvassing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - it may well seem excessive but it doesn't surprise me at all, given the history of that article especially in the last couple of months. It has been mentioned here at WP:ANI a couple of times and has been the subject of ongoing talk-page discussion on about 8 user talk pages (by my count) including my own. The article was the subject of some concern from a new editor who asked for contributions. I was one of those who responded and rewrote several sections (including the one in question). Those have mostly since been re-written (some several times) after talk page discussions subsequently ramped up after that spike in interest. Having helped with initial clean-up tasks I took a step back and took the article off my watchlist. Given the attention, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up on plenty of other watchlists, though - I don't think anyone would need to have canvassed to produce that result. For the record, had it still been on my watchlist, I would have "voted" the same way - the current title is based on the subject's claim that the event was an assault on his academic freedom. He can claim as much, but the event was just as much a matter of a reaction to his views on homosexuality. I don't think noting as much is a problem. Stalwart111 02:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's not a long-weekend in my part of the world and the same is likely true for a number of those who contributed. Stalwart111 02:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. As one of the 'six editors' who 'showed up at the RfC', I have to ask exactly what CarolMooreDC thinks RfCs are for? I hadn't been involved with the article. I looked at the disputed material. I came to the conclusion that a section describing events which began with Hoppe making controversial comments about homosexuality should duly indicate this salient fact in the section header. Was I 'canvassed'? To be honest, I'm not sure exactly how I first became aware of the RfC - but I'm not one to blindly !vote without looking at the evidence - and I see no reason to assume (at least without evidence to the contrary) that any of the other participants did either. Clearly the RfC could have been handled better - but that is no reason to cast aspersions on participants, as CarolMooreDC is doing. She should know better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Once the "offending" RfC notice was changed, the issue became OBE. (And there is no guidance that restricts the number of Projects on which a notice can be posted.) Still, the question is, "so what?" Editors like Stalwart & Andy (and the other commentators) can't figure this out? There was no talk page traffic to any of them and there is no evidence that anyone was contacted off-wiki. But tagging the RfC and the contributors about this relatively minor, make that trivial, "canvassing" issue only complicated things. (I endeavored some damage control by removing the unnecessary user-canvassed tags & hatting the off-topic canvassing complaint. But those efforts were thwarted by OP.) Voiding the RfC sounds like a lousy solution – the issue concerned will then be open for more talk page discussion and another RfC. The same notice will go out and the same interested parties will say the same thing. Lastly, from OP's comment about BLP and an upcoming BLPN, it looks like this ANI is a stepping stone to (yet) another forum. I urge that it be closed without action. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP Policy, canvassing entails intent the intent to influence, not effect of influencing, the outcome of a dispute. It's clear that the effect of SPECIFICO's involving other editors was Carol's position being rejected in the RfD. However, in her (exceedingly lengthy) above post, Carol does not even attempt to demonstrate that SPECIFICO's intent was rigging the outcome rather than broadening consensus. Apart from unverifiable speculations, Carol lacks any specific case as to how SPECIFICO's actions constituted WP:Canvassing; her argument is therefore not only unsound but meaningless. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Suggest closing this complaint per WP:SNOW. It's clear that User:SPECIFICO should have used the original title of the RfC on his notifications, but it's just as clear that his wording did not affect anyone's !vote, so this is largely a non-issue. LK (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reply & Questions: First, I had no idea you could post to that many Wikiprojects - ten - without being accused of spamming, so I'll keep that in mind.

Intent wise it does seem strange User:Specifico did not post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech, Wikiproject anarchism, Wikiproject libertarianism, Wikiproject conservatism, Wikiproject Philosophy, all places the RfC might get a less biased and/or more sympathetic hearing. If he had, at least I would have been less suspicious. Will I get in trouble now if I post the actual title of RfC?? What if I include a note merely stating what they want to change it to, per the reverted material?? (Which would have been fine with me if SPECIFICO had done it that way.) Just to balance things out?

I assume given the lack of balance in posting to those wikiprojects, and that it is a 3 day holiday in US, that a few more days will be given before this change. More importantly the great majority of the WP:RS put into the article is about the fact that the initial ruling was overturned on academic grounds. I hope this will not be an excuse to remove that material which really would be against WP:BLP.

Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 10:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem to post a duplicate note on other WikiProject talk pages, though it might seem strange to bring an editor to ANI for doing so, only to do the same. But if "balancing" the notices brings you some peace and allows everyone to move on, I can't see there being strong objection to that. The page has 84 watchers and so far there have been just a handful of RfC responses. As for the rest, I think you're crystal-balling problems that haven't happened yet and, based on the article history and extensive talk activity, won't happen. But by all means keep an eye on it - there are at least 83 others doing the same! Stalwart111 11:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you guys say 10 Wikiprojects isn't spamming, well, I'll keep the archived link to this WP:ANI in my files. (Off wikipedia I have been in the past quite a spammer so sensitive to accusations like SPECIFICO's against me, and obviously his doing 10 postings.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

No, not suggesting as much (in fact, I didn't really address that) - my point was just that canvassing WikiProjects, in this instance, was probably fairly pointless given the article traffic/watchers, so being upset about it is probably a bit pointless too. Stalwart111 12:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

...and suggesting that the outcome of the RFC should be declared "invalid" in this case is just ridiculous, to say the least (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The requirement is that the projects be directly related to the topic. In the case at hand, such a relation is tenuous indeed, and raising a concern is reasonable. Collect (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think some of his were but half were far fetched. I myself would be conservative and probably only post to one or two more of the ones I've mention, already having posted to most relevant one libertarianism. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Only "Investment" and "Economics" have tenuous links ... the rest appear pretty related (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's a notable economist and the comments being considered were made in a lecture about banking and money. Stalwart111 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Gotcha (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But I would say the ones Carol listed are also "directly related", so posting to those would be within bounds too, even if pointless. Stalwart111 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying 15 Wikiproject postings are ok? (I have to stifle the spammer in me saying YOO HA!!) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please not that OP has posted a RfC notice here: [101] which did not match the notices posted on other project talk pages. (I have changed it to match the language of all other notices.) For what it's worth, this posting contained a semi-suggested "change" for the section heading title, much like SPECIFICO had done. OP's complaint is now a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Also please note that with both postings, which added suggested language for a changed section title, the effect of Anchoring was at play. In this regard, both notices (OP's & SPECIFICO's) were less than neutral. (However, I AGF and believe that all postings were done in good faith.) As the actual RfC notices are now neutral, as all possible WikiProject talk pages are posted, as each contributor to the RfC was not adversely influenced by the postings, I urge that this discussion be closed with not further action. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about mentioning the suggested section title replacement that everyone had been reverting? Frankly, with all that's been going on I forgot you reverted it at Libertarianism Wikiproject; and of course I argued elsewhere that it was accurate. Whatever. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, in regards to these and other baseless and soundly rejected charges you have made in ANI against other users, and your fruitless, nitpicking attempts to justify them, I urge you to review WP:Battleground. According to that WP regulation, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." In view of your history of inappropriate conduct toward USER:SPECIFICO, I urge you to review WP:Battleground as well as WP:Grudge. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I hope they keep this open a few days for when people get back to ...regular editing. Or I might get tempted some day to spam 15 wikiprojects with relevant posts and get in big trouble. Somebody put the lid on it. (OH, I just remembered an email exchange with someone last year about not spamming too many projects at once with an announcement about a Help project page I beefed up. I knew there was something lurking back in my consciousness. I think I still have his big list with number of watchers for each one, too...Temptation. Temptation.) So it's good to have this up for a while reminding people to exercise self-control. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Talk:Paul Denyer

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

---

120.151.99.193 (talk · contribs) recently added this to the page above, which appears to be either a legal threat or, to a lesser extent, trolling. Penny your thoughts? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:JTGILLICK

Unresolved

 – Admin input requested.

JTGILLICK (talk · contribs) is concerned with the use of WP:BOTS on Wikipedia and their alleged role in the 'vandalism and sabotage campaign engineered and deployed by a small cabal of self-appointed censors to discourage individuals from editing Wikipedia in the proper manner' [102]. Also evidence of WP:POINTY editing. -SFK2 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding to this, JTG is also removing content from pages with really no explanation as to why besides unsourced, including cited material. So what exactly is unsourced? - Amaury (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• BLOCKING ADMIN NOTE I have blocked the editor for "WP:DE, edit warring, possibly compromised account". Something very, very odd is going on. I would like another admin to take a look at his contribs. He hadn't edited since last September and all of a sudden went on a tear with removing material and edit warring, and some kind of soapboxing about about Cluebots are part of the vast conspiracy. Odd stuff. Any admin is free to adjust the block as they see fit, but I really need more eyes on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see compromised account; I found bothersome edits in their history previous to this incident. JTGILLICK's apparent intransigence regarding ClueBot demonstrate that they should remian indeffed; I can see mentoring as a possible solution. Tiderolls 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikicommons Server

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. One for the books. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Hi there, not sure where to post this so I will post this here. I have updated and repaired the Wikicommons server, came across a few bugs, but I got rid of them pretty quick. The LR-384 server is a little faulty, so I may have to install a H900-SDR patch on this server, maybe 2 or 3rd of June, not too sure yet. Wikipedia English, French and Latvian picked up small virus (no more than 3 virus per server) so I had to 'quarantine' the virus and now it is under the process of the 'H900-SDR' patch. Any questions, just post any questions here, or on my talk page. Many thanks. K. Makowski.- . --PT-Kevin-Makowski (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC) PT-Kevin-Makowski is possibly a troll. Wikimedia developers do not post such stuff here at ANI. And English Wikipedia is not really the place for notifying users about server issues. --Glaisher (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Well okay, not a troll, and not a Wikimedia developer either! I am an external technician doing a job for Wikimedia developers. If anyone could re-direct me to a suitable noticeboard that would be appreciated. Many Thanks --PT-Kevin-Makowski (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Wow, that seems really serious! I think we'll need your help to remove the H900-SDR virus, I googled that and it's dangerous. The root password to our servers is Eisail8zooZ8 LeslieCarr (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking care of the virus! LR-384 is an important part of our 'Open the Pod Bay Doors' subsystem, and H900 class viruses are a serious threat to that subsystem. <3 YuviPanda (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 2 or 3rd of June is too late! This must be done today! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I might be able to sort out the server issue by the 2nd of June, however I need to wait for the FRT-80 Fleetfort Software to be dispatched. I am a little busy right now in terms of workload, but I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and other Wikicommons 'admins' . Many Thanks --PT-Kevin-Makowski (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Kevin, while you are here can you update us on this job: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_114#LFLT-B77_Server_repair? Or would that be a different department? If I were you I'd just go ahead without the FRT-80, by the way - it always spoils the colour-scheme, in my opinion. Begoon talk 10:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC) PT-Kevin-Makowski, so nice of you! :D We really need developers like you. And I think you are confusing the server name. Could you please check again? Once again, thank you --Glaisher (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC) At the end of the day, the servers are updated, they are virus free, and everything is up to date. I have e-mailed the receipt to Jimbo Wales, so everything is in order. Do you guys notice a different in your Wikipedia experience? Are articles loading quicker? Feedback much appreciated. --PT-Kevin-Makowski (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) PT-Kevin-Makowski, at the end of the day, we will even give you a block if you won't stop this deception. --Glaisher (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC) But my final note will be that everything has suddenly become very slow! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soo... was this a troll or not? I'm confused.--Auric talk 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

Can we get an admin eye on the user who made this comment [[103]]? The threat itself " I am very well considering taking this to the authorities as your cyber bullying is begining to affect my welfare." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He has replied and retracted [[104]], I have encouraged him to come here and discuss the situation because on the outside it does look llike there is issues. No comment on which is at fault Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at all satisfied the retraction is anything but showboating. In addition to what's already noted, he's also made at least two attempts to (in his mind, at least) out AussieLegend here and here, the first of which could also be construed as both Wiki-hounding and a legal threat. He is currently attempting to change his user ID, no doubt to avoid scrutiny for some or all of his recent actions (see the second link already provided.) --Drmargi (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only say that when I left the template he came to my page, was reasonable and took the advice to retract. You may well be right but either way there is issues that need resolving. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2)Actually, this is no surprise. He admitted to sockpupperty, then re=tracted it, then admitted it again today, before blanking his talk page. I'm currently in the middle of drafting an ANI report here. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

HIAB, I don't believe I said anything to suggest there weren't issues to resolve, but rather expressed an opinion regarding the sincerity of the retractions given the editor's history. I then added more evidence to support what you already have in place, which would clearly indicate the scope of the problem is larger, even, than you presented. --Drmargi (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Listen, im being bullied by Aussie Legend. Ive asked his nicely a number of times to sum up and end the original situation (addition of links to multiple articles) and each time he escalates and adds my user ID and link URL to some board. This frustrates me and I obviously retaliate to it. Now im simply changing my ID as for some reason I cant terminate my account in order to alienate my self from the profile. If the name change gets approved, I give anyone permission to permanently block the account, I don’t care. I just want this over. Cutajarc (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps outing someone while information on you can be obtained in seconds from a Google search isn't such a good idea. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of times that this SPS has been restored to articles by Cutajarc and IPs that Cutajarc ha denied are him, there's good reason to keep it listed. There is, however, no justification for Cutajarc's continued harassment and sockpuppetry. In order to bully Cutajarc I'd actually have to do something, when all I've done is ask him to stop posting on my talk page. I commented on his request to change his username because he said "You can do what ever the hell you like for all I care as Wikipedia is wayyyy at the bottom of my list and means NOTHING to me, I can easily make a new account which you will never know about anyway so it doesnt bother me." The request for a new username so soon after was more than suspicious. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think if you're honest, you'll acknowledge this is an outgrowth of several editors questioning the use of your personal website, and AL's assertion you're a sock puppeteer. Everything he's done from there has been an appropriate response within policy to some retaliatory act on your part, largely outside of policy (such as the talk page harassment, attempts at outing and legal threats). --Drmargi (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May I mention my username is my family name, I DONT appreciate AussieLegend distributing it around anywhere he likes. I want the name changed for numerous reasons and privacy is one. If there is even an option I want my account deleted. Ive attempted to discuss this with him and each time he either removes the post from his talk page, or refused to discuss the matter anywhere else. Cutajarc (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You set yourself up for that when you a) used it as your ID and; b) chose to act in the way you did. You've got no one to blame but yourself if your ID is on various noticeboards on this site. By using your name, you gave the community permission to identify you using it. --Drmargi (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This has gotten way out of hand; it’s escalated out of frustration and anger. I may have broken rules and I admit that. But it was purely out of frustration as not a single person would even give me a chance without defaming my name or taking some sort of action against me. Take a look at my contribs, before the link posts I very well contributed to Wikipedia occasionally and rarely have I had any conflict. I never thought I would be in this sort of situation years back when I created my account. Cutajarc (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

With the amount of information out there on you, for your sake, I'd suggest you act quickly and get rid of it. As you for your Wikipedia account, it will not be deleted, and your chances of getting your username changed are quite slim given the way you acted; though an admin might show some compassion and perhaps execute the change but I don't believe they're under any obligation to do so. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you really mean to leave, you might look into WP:VANISH. But given the number of blockable offenses you've committed, I'm not sure it will be an option. --Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of what? anything ive done unconstructively has been removed by me or someone else. Instead of providing advice or approaching the situation appropriately, Ive been treated rudely. One of my points was the fact that Aussie Legend seemed to have his "personal website" linked, yet his arguement toward me was "personal websites" were not allowed. His views where biased and this upset me greatly. Cutajarc (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested you remove the other stuff on yourself from the internet because, based on your comments, you seem to be worried about revealing your identity. If that's not the case, then don't worry. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about revealing my identity at all, I just don’t want any of my personal information used on this site only. Well I have the feeling nothing is going to be done. If the name change is declined ill just change my password to something very long and random, remove my email address and after a little while everything will be forgotten and my account will be rendered useless. I have no idea why Aussielegend is wasting his time in drafting a report anyway, what will he achieve?

Cutajarc (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You must understand that you've caused a great deal of disruption, especially when you outed someone and threatened to report them to police. That's something no one wants to deal with, particularly when we're all just trying to do our bit in contributing to Wikipedia. You wouldn't be anywhere near this situation if you didn't the do the aforementioned thing. None of what you did before is anywhere near as serious as what you did just now; yeah you socked, given that it was your first offense, you probably would've gotten a warning if you were sincerely apologetic, for the sourcing issue, you wouldn't have even gotten a warning. The Streisand effect is probably the most appropriate term to describe what you've done here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - Allalone89 (talk · contribs)

I've blocked Cutajarc for 3 days for his battleground behaviour, outing and personal attacks. His recent conduct was totally unacceptable, we do not need people researching other user's real names to use them to harass and attack them. That said, I am willing to rename the user as he claims his current name is his real name. Note that he will now be editing as Allalone89 (talk · contribs). WJBscribe (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:N-HH automatically assuming bad faith on my part, providing combative rather than constructive criticism

I recently opened a discussion on problems I saw with the intro on the talk page of the Fascism article with repetition on points. N-HH has responded by automatically assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of wanting to take over the intro, and presumably that I am not open to criticism for intro content. I will admit that in the past I have perhaps gone too far with WP:BOLD when I have seen material lacking in intros and main bodies of articles. However this accusation that I am trying to take over the intro is not rational when I specifically opened a talk page discussion on the subject.

All of these problems with N-HH started when I got extremely angry and uncivil at him at one point when he was accusing me of incompetence. I reported myself for incivility, and have since apologized on N-HH's talk page, and taken a long time off Wikipedia with some intermitting returns, and am only showing up to advocate changes I view needed. I believe that this is a long-term problem, that N-HH has neither accepted my apology nor has been willing to move on, and that this behaviour may indicate that he is holding a grudge towards me.

Still the main issue that I am addressing here is the automatic assumption of bad faith. The following two diffs demonstrate these automatic assumptions: [105], [106].

--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what's ANI-worthy here. What action do you want against me? Even if there had not been a pattern of previous behaviour on your part – ranging from mild article ownership and disruptive editing all the way to random abuse and sockpuppetry – it would not be illegal to politely raise a query about actions and motives, while nonetheless focusing, as I have been, on article content. And, in any event, the second diff clearly shows me rowing back from any assumptions about your intentions. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno -- but perhaps you might try finding compromise edits instead of using the revert button so readily? Sometimes intermediate wording can solve issues far better than reverts do. And charging anyone with "ownership" and the like requires quite a bit more evidence than you muster. If you wish to start an RfC/U on R-41 - do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there were serious problems with parts of the Fascism lead as was, some significant changes and improvements were made and then, as you know, we had an RFC on the difference, which pretty unanimously backed the version that I've since been sticking up for over the past couple of months. Most of the edits since the RFC have been politically motivated borderline vandalism (eg "fascism is socialism!") or barely improvements at all. Reverting those seems fair enough to me; and my having done that a couple of times over several weeks is certainly not something for ANI. As for dragging other users to noticeboards or into the bureaucratic stocks, I have neither the time or inclination. I'd sooner rely on people being persuaded that not every contribution they make is as helpful as they might think it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I used an anon account as part of WP:CLEAN START, so that I would not face prejudice for previous editing actions. But that didn't work. During that incident several months ago, when I reported myself for my inappropriate statements I made, N-HH got angry at administrators and accused them of being friendly towards me in a way condoning what I did, an administrator responded by warning him about the fact that he was not adhering to WP:AGF of the administrators, and asked approximately "did you leave your AGF at the front door this morning?". N-HH is doing this again, and I believe that it is possible that N-HH is doing this because he may be holding a grudge towards me over what I said several months ago. Therefore I repeat: I apologize for my extremely inappropriate comments I said several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actions that I request should be undertaken: I want a clear warning to N-HH on his behaviour: to stop posting automatic assumptions of bad faith on talk pages that are about article content that aim belittle the content of what I have added based on implicit accusations against the nature of my character that could manipulate other users' perceptions of what I have contributed. If N-HH continues to post automatic assumptions of bad faith on article talk pages after being warned, I believe a 24 hour block should be put in place, hopefully to demonstrate that automatic assumptions of bad faith are not accepted on Wikipedia, and to encourage N-HH to change his behaviour. If it continues afterwards, I will request stronger sanctions. These public declarations of automatic assumption of bad faith on my part by N-HH has gone on for months now, in spite of me having taken long breaks from editing and apologizing for earlier unconstructive behaviour, this needs to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If he really believes that I am acting in a damaging manner to the Wikipedia Project, then he open up an RfC/U on me, and request administrative review of my actions. He should not be posting his perceptions of the nature of a user's contributions on talk pages about article content. --R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what AGF actually says: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". You know, like constantly asserting that I am "holding a grudge" against you. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Automatically assuming bad faith that you have done regardless of what I am contributing is not productive, especially posting accusations of the nature of my editing behaviour on article talk pages about content to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions. There is a place to make such complaints: that is RfC/U, but that should not be posted on an article talk page. Instead of discussing with me how to get the best ideas of all the editors involved in discussion and providing constructive criticism, you are combative, as Collect has mentioned above you simply revert my edits and condemn my edits for mistakes rather than working constructively. Also, take a look at WP:GRUDGE, I think it is reasonable to observe your user-to-user behaviour with me and make the conclusion that you are holding a grudge because you are still holding me in contempt for what I did several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin intervention please...

Hello. Can someone look into the Accession of Croatia to the European Union article? There seems to be a problem in which I got involved (unfortunately) very recently with this article. It started with Ron 1987 by simply deleting Germany[107] from the list despite the official link. After I pointed him to refer to the link in question [108] he did it again [109] to which I once more reverted and pointed him again to refer to the link in question [110] at which point another user Tomi566 appears and deletes all official links and claimed they are just "wrong", I reverted him as well recongizing that as simple vandalism and I pointed out that he cannot simply delete official verifiable links on the premise of them being wrong and he being in the right [111] to which he replies by deleting the links and stating "I can because the link is wrong" [112] and then started adding some completely irrelevant links which are no in contradiction whatsoever with what has the article stated prior to that. I reverted him again on the basis of vandalism [113] and pointing him to discuss this before making such blatant statements and disruptive edits to which Ron 1987 appears again now doing the same revert [114] to which I once more reverted on the basis of blatant vandalism and I threatened to report them if they continue [115] to which yet another user L.tak appears using the same rhetoric and doing exactly the same revert as those two previously mentioned users [116].

Now if I am not mistaken deleting verifiable (and official at that) sources is more than just content dispute, this constitutes a disruptive behavior in bad faith and is just pure and simple vandalism thus my attempt to revert and point them to talk page. However If I am mistaken I am ready to bear the full responsibility for my actions. But since we have a long-standing status-quo / consensus version of the article and the official sources which have been present in the article for quite some time now being deleted by few users I don't see how can that be a simple content dispute but a disruptive vandalism. My first and foremost issue is the deletion of all the links that are now absent or constantly removed from the article.

BTW I also believe all three mention users Ron 1987, Tomi566 and L.tak are possibly clone accounts of the same user who uses them to enforce his disruptive edits based on their rhetoric and behavior. I may be mistaken though but at this point seems very likely. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've provided you with four references, one being the Bundesrat itself, and you still claim Germany has finished parliamentary approval on the basis of a EU Delegation's to Croatia map coloring? For your information, their coloring has been wrong in the past, for example, they have made the same coloring right after House of Commons and well before the House of Lords voted. Do you realize that German legislative process requires both Bundesrat and Bundestag votes, and one can claim that parliamentary approval has been granted only when both chambers vote in favour. In one of the references there's a clear Croatian MFA position "The treaty now needs to be approved by the upper house, the Bundesrat, at a plenary session which begins on 7 June. This will mark the end of the ratification process." What do you think would happen if Bundesrat votes against? Do you think they are voting on June 7 just for fun?

Furthermore, there was no "long-standing consensus version" of the article. Bundestag voted only 11 days ago. Also, the main article Treaty of Accession 2011, never claimed Germany has finished parliamentary proceedings. And your accusations of clone accounts are not even worth answering. Tomi566 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is your blatant deletion of several links and all on the premise of your statement that the "link is wrong and you right". For your information the link which you deleted also deals with other countries and their process of ratification as well. So you have deleted the official source which shows the current status of ratification process' in each respective country of the EU and not just that of Germany. And yes there was a long-standing consensus version of the article...that link was there from the very beginning of the ratification process...and now you come along saying "it's wrong, I am right", deleting it without any discussion or consensus. As for the disputes on the content issues I have already answered you on the talk page Talk:Accession of Croatia to the European Union.Shokatz (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I sense a WP:BOOMERANG on its way here...

Shokatz, you are mistaken, removing a link is not vandalism. It's a content dispute. While you might not agree with the rationale provided for removing the link (I don't either), that doesn't make it vandalism. Your repeated WP:HITLER attacks against other good faith editors (here and in your edit summaries) are not helpful to resolving the content dispute.

The "long-standing status-quo / consensus version" which Shokatz is attempting to edit war in (Germany in the "Parliamentary approval obtained" section) dates all the way back to May 17: [117]. While Shokatz has tried hard to reframe the issue to whether or not the official link should be retained, they chose to keep moving Germany against consensus while restoring the link, violating the WP:3RR in the process: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]. Note that the first revert isn't within 24h, but shows the pattern of disruption. As Shokatz makes clear in his own post, there are numerous editors opposed to this change and clearly no WP:CONSENSUS to make it.

As for the accusations of "clone accounts", this is obviously an uninformed and bad faith attack. I've interacted with all three editors for some time now, and all are good faith editors who have VERY different styles, etc. There are no "clones". (That being said, I'll probably be the next user accused of being a "clone" so take that for what it's worth...) TDL (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL come one.... Yes perhaps I have maybe went too far by accusing these users being clones but it sure looked like they are all the same person. Looking at their contributions (which are all within the same sphere - EU accession related) and the same rhetoric and behavior they exhibited while reverting the article in question what was I to think there? The main issue is that they kept deleting Germany entirely from the accession list and then continued with the blatant deletion of the link on the premise "it is wrong". As I have stated I don't have a problem with these so-called content disputes as I believe we have now reached a consensus....I have a huge problem with deleting stuff on the premise "the link is wrong" or just deleting mention of certain countries. As I said I am responsible entirely for my edits and if I am in the wrong here then I will suffer the consequences. Shokatz (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've locked the article for 5 days because of the edit warring content dispute. Shokatz is not the only editor who is edit warring. At first glance, I see no basis for the socking allegations. I suggest you go back to the talk page and continue your discussion about the content so hopefully it will be resolved by the time the lock expires. Stick to content, please, not attacks on other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems Shokatz has found the talk page. If anything good has come of this, it is that point…. Rgds L.tak (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations despite warnings on Hans-Hermann Hoppe

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

---

Note: Moving this here from WP:BLPN per user and admins' comments below. Highlighted specific request at end. (Sorry to bring two WP:ANIs in 24 hours, but as others have observed, the disruptions in this article are reverberating all over Wikipedia!) Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

New (April 16) User:Steeletrap immediately started editing on articles where s/he has a couple strong POVs and ignored and even ridiculed warnings about BLP-related issues. S/he early on detailed a POV against Austrian economists of the Von Mises and Murray Rothbard schools, like Hoppe. S/he says her interest originally was inspired by her/his MBA advisor's recommendation she look at their views, leading to her focus on editing, or AfDing, their biographies. (See this diff of related talk page discussions.) Recently his/her strong POV on homosexuality has lead to constant violations of policy, despite multiple past warnings, per the most recent examples below. (Sorry if this is long but there have been so many problems.)

• Misrepresents Snyder saying he says a “gay” student brought a charge and long negative WP:OR not in source.
• Misrepresents Snyder again saying Hoppe only talks about discrimination vs. homosexuals when source quotes statement regarding discrimination against democrats, communists, hedonists, parasites and nature worshipers
• Using personal and negative interpretations of cherry picked primary source information when secondary sources readily available]. (Then complaining on talk page that his/her personal interpretation is replaced by summary of an academic secondary source.)
• Reverts insisting that a section title only regarding homosexuals be inserted, when the material also concerns discrimination against democrats, communists, hedonists, parasites and nature worshipers
• Replaced original source with Snyder reference and then made claim misrepresenting both sources

User:Steeletrap also has engaged in questionable and even defamatory attacks on Hoppe on the article talk page:

• Three long paragraphs of soapbox speculation based on an unreliable source and a self-interpreted quote. More of same based on yet another unreliable source.
• Suggests using self-published blog as a source even though it already was rejected here at WP:BLPN as source in another BLP.
• Soapbox ridicule of the subject of BLP

User talk page warnings to this editor include:

• First talk page warning, on adding WP:OR. (With typical response of you are wrong and this is almost a personal attack).
• Note about not spreading titulating claims on talk pages
• My warning on libelous WP:OR edits claiming BLP subject's advocacy of violence and his/her WP:ANI against me for the warning, which was rejected.
• Warning on using self-published sources that attack subject of BLP
• Disruptive editing alert on Hoppe page. (Warning to Steeletrap about a personal attack related to it)
• Warning on personal attack and another mocking of BLP concerns
• Warning on latest round of BLP violations detailed above regarding Wikipedia policies quoted and discussed and explained over and over again on article, WP:BLPN and the editor's talk page.

Request:The editor obviously needs strong mentoring and perhaps a ban from editing this article (and other related BLPs that might grab his/her attention) until s/he is willing to abide by policy and end the disruptive editing of biographies. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good that this has been brought to BLPN, but it might also need attention at ANI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had a hard time figuring out when these rise to the level of WP:ANI and thought admins oversaw this. But I guess I can link to this?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From a quick reading, I think it's likely that problems will continue. Some admins do watch BLPN, but I'm not aware that admin action is usually taken against editors on the basis of posts here; at most, someone might take action on the article. If someone warns on the basis of what's here, that's great, but if not then ANI might be necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously admins patrol this noticeboard and sometimes take action depending on what they see, but this is not a board for requesting administrative action. If you're requesting a topic ban, it would be better to take this to WP:AN. If you're requesting some other kind of action, WP:ANI would probably be better. If you're not sure (although it would help if you were), I suppose ANI is the better choice. I wouldn't "link" to this; I'd move it wholesale to the other board (remove it from here). I am expressing no opinion on the merits of your complaint, although I will say that Steeletrap is the only editor who has ever called me "sweet" - better than a barnstar any day. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Response (Please read before rendering judgment)

Carol's five BLP-related criticisms are misrepresentations. As to the first, it's true that the student who "reported" Hoppe was a homosexual, as Hoppe himself said (see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html. I believe this was sourced in the original edit, I am certain I added the above-mentioned Hoppe article very soon after, without promptiing from Carol.)

The second/attack is a bizarre misreading. Saying Snyder had "distaste" for Hoppe's remarks about homosexuals does not mean that I was saying that he "only" had distaste for his remarks regarding them, as Carol bizarrely indicates.

The third attack refers not to "OR", but to a pretty straightforward paraphrase of a book-review of Hoppe's. None of the summary there is damaging to Hoppe and in fact, is quite similar (albeit, in my view, more clearly and concisely and evocatively written) to the summary Carol replaced it with. In any case, Carol gives no specific argument as to why that edit is "OR"; she just asserts it, so I can't even begin to respond to that.

The fourth attack is a misreading of the heading. The heading is "controversy of remarks regarding homosexuals" because all of the people listed as responding to Hoppe's remarks about "physically removing" from society homosexuals, while none of them appear to have been responding to Hoppe's remark about democrats/etc. It therefore would have been inacccurate to list the "controversy" as being over the democrats/communists stuff rather than about homosexuals. (see Carol's diff above).

The fifth attack is again just wrong. A source cited later in the piece, by myself, indicates that Hoppe said many economists believe Keynes' homosexuality influenced . This may have been removed accidentally by me (I don't think it was, but am too lazy to verify this) but this surely wasn't intentional, since removing it would've hurt my case.) (See: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16525.0;wap2 for the Review-Journal Article I cited for that claim.) (UPDATE: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&oldid=556620932; the Review-Journal piece was cited by me long before Carol's complaint, in the form of http://web.archive.org/web/20050209040615/http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-05-Sat-2005/news/25808494.html this)o the

As to the PA allegation, this has been addressed extensively. The remark calling Carol personally an embarassment was a typographical error; I had intended to say something like "your edits are an embarrassment." I deleted the comment immediately after seeing it, and apologized for my mistake. I do not think that mixing up two words should be assumed to be a PA, particularly sense no other credible accusation of PA has been made against me. (In contrast, see below for a sampling of Carol's copious PAs, which in part prompted my angry (and inappropriate) response above.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the talk page stuff, but hopefully the fact that all of Carol's alleged "BLP" violations on the Hoppe page are spurious allegations helps people along. Steeletrap (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This is the first I've heard of the first Hoppe link; the rest people can judge for themselves. And this is just the last few days. I could include another 25 questionable edits for last 5 weeks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It was in there (in the form of this link visible at, for instance, this edit of the page I made days ago. It's not my fault that you neglected to notice it; the burden is on you to justify your charges, rather than being on me to correct your incorrect statements. Steeletrap (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Insert:] The first link (which as I've mentioned several times is an old version of a more direct link to the Lake article which we currently use in the article) doesn't mention that factoid. The Hoppe link only has been used in other context. You have to put references where they belong and not expect readers or editors to mind read. Also, some might question using his article, even if published by LewRockwell.com and Mises.org, to make claims about another person, especially if some might see them as negative. (Since he's supposed to be so anti-homosexual especially.) But that's another issue. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Context of Carol's history of personal attacks on me Regarding my claims about her "PA" on the talk page, please note that this is in response to a long history of personal attacks Carol has made on me since I came to Wikipedia last month. For a brief sampling, Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) Steeletrap (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Context of Carol's prior false charges on BLP violations Though it does not falsify her charges in and of itself, it is of note that Carol has made many other charges of libel/BLP violations against others and myself that have been rejected as baseless. For instance, she claimed my proposed title change from a section titled "academic freedom controversy" to one that mentioned Hoppe's remarks about homosexuality to was not only a BLP violation, but "libelous". However, the subsequent RfD on this matter has not only so seen users overwhelmingly vote (8 to 2) to change the title to one invoking Hoppe's views on homosexuality, but also seen none of them affirm Carol's allegations of libel, which are far more serious than mere BLP violations. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F)

To give another example, Carol's remarked that talk discussion between User:SPECIFICO and myself was libelous and attempted to "hat" our discussion. This change was reverted as baseless. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Removal_of_talk_page_material_per_WP:BLP) Steeletrap (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also see Carol's charges of Canvassing against User:SPECIFICO, which have been widely rejected by commentators on the ANI she created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Canvassing_by_User:SPECIFICO Steeletrap (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical point. Steeltrap, could you enclose your diffs in square brackets, thus [124], instead of in round ones, thus (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.). The strings of code make your contributions difficult to read. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not make large generalized claims about other editors without providing diffs so people can see context. Anyone studying just the above, not to mention observing the editing and talk page of several articles over a period of weeks, would see a highly negative pattern of editing out of touch with BLP policy which reads: Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. It's even worse than what I've seen in BLP's on the Israel-Palestine issue, and that's saying a lot! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, could you clarify one thing for those of us not familiar with the entire saga outlined here? Are you suggesting that it is a violation of WP:BLP policy for a Wikipedia article to make an (easily sourced) statement that Hoppe made comments regarding homosexuality which led to controversy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what that refers to, except perhaps a month long pattern of looking for and pushing negative info into the article. (Note that evidently User:Steeletrap wanted two different sections to be titled regarding two different remarks on homosexuality.)

But if you are bringing up the RfC, I would say that the problem is that if one emphasizes a precipitating incident while down playing the outcome, it's a problem. If there was a section on an incident where someone stole something worth $500 bucks and then the cops beat him up, break and arm, poke an eye out and in the end the cops get fired and he wins a million dollar law suit, would you title the section "allegations of felony theft" or "police brutality case"? Sure they did the deed, but is that really the point? Now I can see something like "Police brutality after allegation of theft" - though it's too long. And I can see "Academic freedom controversy after homosexual remarks" - though it's too long. Happily some editors with a more NPOV view have advocated something like that and if that was he original proposal it would have been more acceptable. But in the context of a month long campaign it looked like defamation to me. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

'Defamation'? That is a rather loaded word. Are you sure you wouldn't like to rephrase that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

'Defamation' is an extraordinary claim. There was never any doubt that he said what he did, so there is no question of defamation at all. The outcome was far from clearcut, so your analogy does not work. And in any case, the complaints were about his views. It's perfectly acceptable to object to someone's views. Likewise one may object to views while also supporting the right to express them. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I too am confused by this. I checked the source for this diff you present as evidence against Steeletrap ("Replaced original source with Snyder reference and then made claim misrepresenting both sources") Snyder states "Hoppe opined that certain demographic groups, for instance homosexuals, tend to he more shortsighted in their economic outlook than those who have children. He also suggested that the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes might he explained by Keynes's reputed homosexuality." Steeletrap does not seem to be misrepresenting this source. The only "problem" is the fact that s/he retains some of the original edit, which includes the statement that this view is held by other economists. But the original source for that is retained, not "replaced" as your comment on the diff inaccurately asserts. Yes, this is clumsily done, but there is no obvious attempt to mislead anyone. I see no evidence that this editor is intentionally misrepresenting anything, nor can I understand why these edits are supposed to be violations of BLP. It's the comment about homosexuals that created the controversy, not his remarks about "democrats", "parasites" (we can all imagine the chorus of "I am a parasite and I object!") etc. The reason for that is modern US campus identity politics, and the logic of of complaints about creating a "hostile atmosphere" for people represented by specific interest groups etc. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the diff, Lake supports my "stated some economists believed "; Snyder does not say anything like Steeletrap's "also suggested that John Maynard Keynes' "spend it now" philosophy was influenced by his homosexuality, claiming that this view of Keynes was supported by many economists." Just re-writing without checking sources may be sloppiness, but editors who are so sloppy they continually put "unsourced or poorly sourced " material into articles while removing properly sourced information are defacto violating WP:BLP, whether or not they have an animus towards the subject. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, note regarding this diff, because User:Steeletrap never fills out their bare url, and the source Mises often reprints chapters of its fellows works, I did not notice that it was a review not original material. I am now rewriting the interpretation of the review which is a synthesis distorting what the review says and includes material not in the source. I just put up this re-do here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Strike_and_rewrite_to_illustrate_POV_WP:OR.2FMisuse_of_sources if you want a look see. We are volunteers here and there's only so much time we have for correcting these constant misquoting and distortion of sources. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, not BLP violations. You now appear to be retreating and nit-picking each edit, trying to create a dramatic pattern when none necessarily exists.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he should fill out bare URL's, but he's new. The claims you make about misrepresentations of sources don't seem right to me. He seems to be trying to reconcile them. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess without reading every tidbit it's hard to figure out when a cascade of minor distortions and snide comments becomes a title wave of BLP violations. If they were all as blatant as "he advocates violence" it would be easier. Sigh...

However, there is a "silver lining"! The new(?) "strike and rewrite" format does seem like a good way to make clear each and every WP:OR, WP:synth, WP:RS issue or violation, especially when explaining policy over and over just does not work. If it works on this article, maybe I'll write an essay, propagate it through Help pages, and it might help teach editors quicker and weed out those who don't want their pov edits carefully analyzed. What a concept!!!! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that at present the actual content disagreement is very small and involves nuances of wording, not principles of BLP. I suggest that, altho they may not realise it, the editors have basically resolved their differences. I think the manner in which they discussed them was overdramatic,but what else is new around WP? DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Remark So far, all editors who have looked into both sides of the matter and decided to opine have indicated that Carol's charges of BLP violations are unfounded. I'd go further, saying that, as her numerous PAs indicate, this may be about going after me personally, not upholding policy. As a noob, I make plenty of mistakes in my edits. However, I am happy to learn from those mistakes. This was illustrated through my humility in the face of and apology for a 3RR violation (for which I was only warned, since I was as a noob unaware of the policy and since the context of the page made the "EW" charge ambiguous), and my stepping away from the Hoppe page for days (despite not having any formal obligation to do so) in the aftermath of the 3RR.

Incidentally, Carol has admitted (once on this ANI page and a second time on the Hoppe talk page here) that two of her above-mentioned five BLP charges were baseless, for (as she admits) though she said I had no sources for claims that were made, I did provided such sources and she just didn't read the diffs carefully. Taken as a whole, these charges are not only false but mean-spirited and damaging to the community in their nit-picking attempt to "catch" a good-faith noob in policy errors. All of this indicates that this frivolous matter should be swiftly resolved in my favor; I ask that editors examine all of the relevant evidence (Carol's arguments/diffs and my responses) and render judgment as promptly as possible. The burden of proof is on Carol to justify these charges and she hasn't come close to meeting it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap wrote: "Carol has admitted that two of her above-mentioned five BLP charges were baseless" This is not true. I said that you never used the Hoppe reference for the "gay" claim in the place you made it (and that some people might not accept Hoppe as a source for saying anyone is gay anyway.) I said your habit of not filling out your URLs elsewhere allowed me to misread a review as an excerpt from the book, which is what Mises.org often publishes. Perhaps more careful and complete editing would prevent those misunderstandings. And I do still feel there has been a lot of unnecessary negativity towards the subject which I link to above which makes it hard to edit in a rational manner. Or maybe titulating speculation about subjects of BLP is allowed and I'm too strict on policy?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't explicitly admit "they were baseless" but you implicitly did so by conceding that your basis for them was incorect. Other editors can decide this matter for themselves. Steeletrap (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Linkspam and self-promotion; admin intervention please...

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

---

• Nigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Links mainly intended to link his own website,[125][126][127] (only few examples of WP:Self-promotion and violation against WP:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia). Replace independent references and add additional references (only of his own page) most times without any additional informations. Please read also the history of his talk page, he had been warned several times by different users. BTW: The new User:Roy Hesketh Circuit looks like a sockpuppet. --Pitlane02 talk 13:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've blocked the latter for their username; I can't look into the former right now. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposed requested move restrictions on In ictu oculi

Over a protracted length of time In ictu oculi ("Iio") has been active in the moving of article titles to ones that use accent marks often against the advise presented in the article title policy and guidance on this issue in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

When editors discuss an appropriate name which may include accent marks, providing they act in good faith and follow the article title policy and the appropriate naming naming convention, they can usually agree on the the name that most closely meets that guidance even if they personally do not think it is "correct".

This guidance has been pointed out to Iio more than once by different editors for example see here

"The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works) ... In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources ... Search engines are problematic unless their verdict is overwhelming ... [some] fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors ... Beware of over-dramatising these issues." ...

— PaleCloudedWhite 29 August 2012

Yet he has persistently and purposefully ignored this advise. At first he did this by quoting obscure MOS guidelines that relate to content not the naming of articles. After that strategy proved to be less than persuasive, he has fallen back on quoting a point from WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content"]]. Other editors do not consider sources with no É in the font set reliable for the statement of whether a name has É. Same then with ć..00:57, 23 May 2013

The problem with this argument is that it brooks no compromise and hence no attempt to build a consensus is possible, which is what the guidance quoted above is intended to do. It is an argument at the opposite end of the scales from one that states there are 26 letters in the English alphabet and that any source that uses any other letter is not a reliable source. Both arguments are points of view which do not follow the spirit of the guidance in the article title policy and its naming conventions.

As such Iio has persistently and deliberately, with no consideration for the disruption he causes tried to force his ideas of on what is the correct spelling of may hundreds of Wikiepdai article titles, not matter what the majority of reliable English language sources use, and in doing this has deliberately ignored the spirit and the letter of the article title policy.

Iio is very aware of what he is doing because Iio will use arguments based on the article title policy and naming conventions when it suits his purposes eg at the moment he has three outstanding RM requests one of which is:

• Talk:Leipzig Central Station#Requested move "Leipzig Central Station → Leipzig Hauptbahnhof – restore to most common English name per WP:UE"

yet on another

• Talk:Ana Ivanovic#Requested Move 3 Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović – per Anne M. Todd Venus and Serena Williams 2009 Page 92. (Please note that this is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp and that no green card or dual nationality issues are involved) Thank you

He ignores the arguments presented in WP:UE (and its naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)).

Therefore I propose that:

1. In ictu oculi refrains for the rest of this year from initiating or (inciting other to to initiate) any discussions on the moving, or the proposed moving, of articles titles which is not based on the article title policy policy and appropriate naming conventions.
2. In ictu oculi follows the spirit of the article title policy and the appropriate naming conventions and drops all arguments based on the premise that third party reliable sources, that do not contain accent marks are unreliable, when the alleged unreliability is based solely on the tautological argument that only articles that use accent marks are reliable for the purposes of determining the spelling of a Wikipedia article title.

-- PBS (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• PBS, (1) you've done this before and the last time you were warned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that it was "frivolous" In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will others decide if you comment is a fair description of that ANI -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(2) you're supposed to notify people. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Edit clash] :I notify you as soon as as I was able and it was in the same minute that you posted you second comment to this thread! -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(3) you are heavily involved here as having made edits to WP:UE and other guidelines which reflect your own views that we should count mentions a majority low-MOS (eg ASCII) sources as reliable for foreign BLP names.

(4) On Talk:Édouard Deldevez your opposition to French accents clarification: WP:FRMOS was described as "hysterical" by User:Michael Bednarek.

(5) Talk:Dominik Halmoši is one of the RMs you are referring to. What evidence do you see here that the community supports your view?

(6) Talk:Gérard Solvès is another one. Again, what evidence do you see here that the community supports your view?

(7) In any case a RM restriction now is irrelevant, since Talk:Ana Ivanovic is the last European bio with an accent stripped name. If you wanted to ban RMs for BLP names then I'm afraid you should have been more persuasive on RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez since there are no more to be had. However I would be very happy as I offered before for you and I to enter into a mutual holiday from the subject, which would allow you to back off from editing WP:UE and WP:EN and let other editors input there. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Iio I notice that instead of discussing the perceived problems you instead attack the messenger. For example you write "your opposition to French accents" yet I am neither for nor against French accents I am for Wikipedia following the usage in reliable English language sources. It seem to me that you are not unless the happen to follow your preconceived notions of what is correct. This is why I am suggesting that you stop such disruptive behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

PBS, I'm sorry, but you have the same opportunity yourself putting in RMs. In fact you have one in right now to remove æ from Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica, and it may well be in that case (a book not a BLP) I will support your RM, but the views of editors regarding what constitutes "reliable" for spelling European BLP names has been gone over ad infinitum in the RMs above. If you disagree with the results, then you are free to submit RMs to try and get the accents removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But notice that my construction of the EB request was based on AT policy! Again I notice that you are not discussing the two proposals I have put forwards, and instead you are proposing that I open up RMs to counter your RMs, which seems to indicate that you either you agree that your behaviour is disruptive, or that you are inciting me to be disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

PBS, I'm not sure what I can tell you. The editors who took part in those RMs followed WP:UE "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen" and WP:EN ; Tomás Ó Fiaich, not Tomas O'Fiaich and did not consider ASCII sources as reliable for European BLP names. You need to significantly reword WP:UE and WP:EN, and I would suggest removing Søren Kierkegaard and Tomás Ó Fiaich as examples, to make a case that the editors and closers in those RMs were wrong. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If I might interject, before this degenerates further may I respectfully ask that the two of you refrain from commenting until others have the chance to add their own comments/supports/oppose except to respond to specific questions that are posed of you? This way, it won't degenerate into the train wreck that ANI's such as these so often do. Blackmane (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• More importantly, what administrative action is being requested here? This is an editing and/or content dispute. Other venues should be considered for dispute resolution. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User 98.236.201.66 disruptive editing at Workaholics

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

---

Hello all, Previous ANI was archived - here

IP user is at it again, same nonsense edits - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=557034587&oldid=556999027 as well as general incoherent edits on characters/cast bios.

Original notice as posted 11 days ago summarized: The page for Workaholics has one IP user very particular in adding a piece of extraneous nonsense to one of the main character's brief bios. Not only is it not relevant, it is also vacuous and frequently makes the sentence he attaches it to nonsense. Or he or she adds it in as its own fragment.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=555415148
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=555142495
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=554737924
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=553574094
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=551892198
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Workaholics&diff=prev&oldid=551386231

It took me a while to start warning the user - in fact, I took the time to give him/her a welcome the first time I wanted to start warning the user, just to break the ice to see if they would notice their talk page or see any human element interaction with Wikipedia. I gave them a last warning, and then posted here when it continued. It has just no resurfaced. JesseRafe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 172,800 seconds (2 days), since this is plain and simple vandalism; please re-report if you find recidivism. You perhaps could have sent this to WP:AIV, but this page works too. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, wasn't sure if this was vandalism or just disruptive editing. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, reports of simple graffiti like this are welcome at AIV. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Kira Reed - anyone care to apply pending changes and do some mediation?

Kira Reed is an actor/television host. There has been a long-running but slow-moving edit war over the inclusion of material about her start as a porn performer. User:AdamC90 is a single-purpose account who appears to have some connection to the subject. Lately they have taken to simply deleting sourced material about Reed's past. The material is soon replaced, often by User:HairyWombat or User:David in DC (who have also expanded this section to the point that it dominates the article). Perhaps someone could undertake to get the parties involved discussing the issues rather than edit warring? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked User:AdamC90, on his talk page, to join this conversation. I've also tried to suggest a better approach than blanket deletion and assertion that sourced information is libelous or slanderous. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also added to the lede, and done some copy-editing and re-arranging to try to respond to the phrase "...to the point that it dominates the article." Please review this diff and accompanying edit summary. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It it not just User:Adam90 that is attempting to sanitize this article; other single-purpose accounts are: User:173.196.204.154 , User:KiraFan, and User:MrCharlieMeats (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 6#Kira Reed for a summary). The problem, as I see it, is one of notability. Kira Reed is notable as a porn actress; she is not notable for anything else (see Talk:Kira Reed#Notability for a summary). Her hard-core career, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a large feature of this because they were very innovative in their marketing and this shows in the secondary sources. I don't believe this section has been given undue weight in the article. Finally, there has been ample opportunity for the single-purpose accounts to engage in discussions on the article's Talk page. Hopefully, they will now do so. HairyWombat 02:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just tired of seeing it pop up on my watchlist and wondering if there isn't some way to end the edit warring through discussion. One of the reasons I suggested pending changes is because of the possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to report sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdamC90/Archive. Nothing was done. (User:KiraFan has appeared since then.) Pending changes looks like a good idea. HairyWombat 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, User:AdamC90 seems to be making constructive edits to address WP:UNDUE and is no longer blanket-reverting. I've cleaned up a little after him, but it seems his objection is to the words "hard-core" and "sex". I think we may be making progress, with at least one SPA here. David in DC (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about that. The editor is here to edit these two articles, and that is it, textbook WP:SPA. In 5 years the user has never once used a talk page, either for articles, other users or their own. They have ignored all warnings, advise, and attempts at communication. They are censoring sections, stating "slanderous information" and "libellous" or "wording" as an excuse to remove cited content in opposition to WP:NOTCENSORED. Not to mention marking these edits a minor. Editor needs a wakeup call. Heiro 04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

They couldn't even be bothered to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch, for one of the two articles they edit (which was relisted 4 times to generate discussion before it was kept as "No consensus"). Heiro 04:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User:The Dark Lord Sauron

Obvious troll: [128]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like a new user.--Auric tavlk 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me were those 2 words "obvious troll" aimed at me? Is that some sort of internet abbreviation? [unsigned--by the Dark Lord hisself, I suppose]

Sauron writes:

"Thanks. I might need those since i are of Bosnian-Bulgarian descent and only speak the Bosnian with a bit of english" [129]

But Sauron writes in perfect English here:

"I am wondering why we have a painting of a prostitute & photo of a statue as our lead pics? why not move the lead photo from " Pornography"( a hideously misplaced photo of a buxom Italian prostitute) to this page? just a question". [130]

We've been getting a spate of Help-page trolls... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks with Respect to March Against Monsanto

Single-Purpose IP address User:218.102.187.145 is accusing other editors who criticize article on March Against Monsanto of being motivated by owning stock in Monsanto. See diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&diff=556937777&oldid=556932838 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A218.102.187.145&diff=556961172&oldid=556959716 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jiataozhang

This new user, though apparently well-intentioned, clearly lacks skills in the English language, and has been adding material to multiple articles which make little or no sense. [131] I think a block per competence, and a link to a more appropriate language Wikipedia may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Jiataozhang's edits are so similar to User:Zhanghao1987's edits that we might be dealing with a sockpuppet or meatpuppet here. Zhanghao1987 was blocked a week ago based on WP:CIR. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing edits, that certainly looks a distinct possibility. 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have some admin attention here. This user is currently filling multiple articles with near gibberish, and has made no response whatsoever to multiple comments and warnings on their talk page. 21:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the user has now been reporter at WP:AIV by RolandR.[132] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked. User:Timotheus Canens indicated that it was  Likely on IRC, and the behavioral evidence was pretty strong. Legoktm (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IPs continuing to revert edits by Trivialist

I've got another anti-fan reverting all my edits :

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

(And (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#IP_reverting_all_edits_by_User:Trivialist previously.) Trivialist (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone with admin bits should block 37.221.169.128/27 for 2 years as an open proxy. It belongs to a free VPN service (cyberghostvpn), which we generally treat as equivalent to open proxies. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Legoktm (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Trolling continuing at the helpdesk

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

---

See the contribs of Crouon Crouton Croutson (talk · contribs) and 76.31.89.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nothing productive from either, just trolling at the help desk (at least not recently from the IP). It is possible it may be related to this user Ordeerligg (talk · contribs), blocked as a troll yesterday after nonsense at the helpdesk. Heiro 20:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Crouon Crouton Croutson (talk · contribs) - look at the contribs, block please. Notifying user on next edit. — The Potato Hose 20:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Um.. Not a troll... Just asked question about The Signpost, which I found to be a depressing read. --Crouon Crouton Croutson (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

^This is trolling by the way. Just thought you'd like to know. Яehevkor ✉ 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock of someone, likely Ordeerligg. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed - Please also check Listen000t-gam (talk · contribs); this, User:Crouon Crouton Croutson, and User:PT-Kevin-Makowski are all likely socks of banned user Technoquat (talk · contribs), who has now returned to launch attacks on the Help Desk and the admin noticeboards again. --MuZemike 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd add blocked user (Bringterugapartetoilette (talk · contribs) to that as well, was blocked for trolling HD yesterday. Heiro 20:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

...and Growen Rowen (talk · contribs), whose MO is identical: he creates a blatant hoax at Pandang Dog Tamlei (still yet to be deleted), complete with a picture that looks like it was whipped up on MS Paint in about 3 minutes. User then goes straight to the Help Desk to complain - just about identical to previous socks. Also needing to be checked: JustBerry (talk · contribs), Zwei-Sunderlund (talk · contribs), and Purpadewllllll (talk · contribs) --MuZemike 21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• SPI filed — The Potato Hose 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Block request

I am requesting a block for Johnleeds1 (talk · contribs) for repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY, particularly that cited sources "must clearly support the material as presented in the article". He has been warned by 10 different users, (User:MatthewVanitas, User:Daniel J. Leivick, User:Tgeairn, User:Dougweller, User:Faizhaider, User:Cplakidas, User:Sodicadl, User:Toddy1, User:Saintali and myself) and today in this edit he added references which do not support the claim. His talk page is littered with complaints and there is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue.Pass a Method talk 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support block as proposer Pass a Method talk 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• So do you have any diffs of problematic editing? Carrite (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of his edits are problematic, i.e. cites wordpress, uses a primary source, uses blog as source, misrepresents sources, Manual of style violations and creating duplicates [133] - [134], violation of UNDUE with constant focus on Zaydis (a minority sect), violation of WP:Relevance/WP:Scope here/here, Original research and NPOV violation, basic grammar issues, [135] WP:COPYRIGHT, etc. Pass a Method talk 22:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the surface (not that many clear links were given) I see several book references (he uses Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa By Allamah Syed Sulaiman Nadvi Page 44 several times) and what appears to be someone who is trying to work in good faith, even if some of his work isn't up to snuff. I see you have thrown a couple of template on his page, but I didn't see you link to where it was discussed with him. I see some problems, but the kind of problems that call for discussion, or maybe an RfC/U, or a mentor. I don't see the links to where all this has been explained in greater detail. Blocking someone is a last resort, after discussion has tried and failed to resolve the issues. I can't see blocking at this point without much stronger evidence being presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I thought that misrepresenting sources was a serious issue? I've seen edtors banned for that.Pass a Method talk 00:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• You really need to be more specific here. The diff you provided has three different sources, some of which aren't viewable online, and you have provided no context. If you are asking for an admin to block someone, the violation has to be crystal clear and spelled out, not buried in a pile of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Torey Krug

Hello,

The section Career statistics under Torey Krug is being repeatedly abused. Current stats for an ongoing season continue to appear under the wrong season. Seasons continue to be deleted, and current stats continue to appear under the current season (although often formatted poorly) when the season has not ended. I have added notes to stop the behavior, but the users are unregistered IP users. Possibly one person under different IP addresses. How can we stop this abuse? Alligatorwine (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: The entire page is now being abused. Recently, the athletes team was changed from his actual team to a team he does not play for. Seems an unlikely target for abuse, but this page maybe needs semi protecting?Alligatorwine (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Threatening to attempt to "out"

24.188.32.225, currently blocked, appears to be threatening to attempt to out another user. Threatening to out constitutes harassment and I think I could delete his user talk page, prevent him from re-creating/editing it, and perhaps extend his block. However, this would smell to me like troll-feeding. Also, it's always me who blocks him: this might start to look like a vendetta. Additionally, he has shown occasional flickers of potential constructiveness, and I think that treatment of him hasn't always followed the rules. So I happily turn over the matter to the first admin who reads this and is cares to spend five minutes thinking about it.

Tangentially: This fellow has somehow failed to notice the (admittedly atrocious) WP article "Skiptrace". -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PS I haven't notified the user, and I'm not going to do so. After all, he can't contribute here, and "PDFTT". -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the threat and left an "only warning" for the IP. Tiderolls 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "Plasma universe" with no discussion

IRWolfie- deleted Plasma universe by redirecting it without warning or discussion [136]. I asked him on his talk page User:IRWolfie-#Plasma universe to revert and if he thought the page should be deleted to take it to AfD. He is a very experienced editor, so must know what he did was against Wikipedia policy. I have now asked him three times to revert, without success. Since my third request [137] on the 26th May I have waited to give him time to respond. He has been very active on Wikipedia since then, but has still not reverted his arbitrary deletion of "Plasma universe". I had thought to take this to DRV, but realise that would be wrong, as it would tacitly accept that anyone could delete a page without discussion and the onus would be on people to notice and object - meanwhile the page would have gone and discussions would not be flagged on anyone's watchlist (because the page no longer exists). Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He redirected a disamb page to the page that the majority of the links redirected too. See his edit summaries, makes perfect sense to me. Heiro 04:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He didn't "delete" anything, just cleaned up a pointless disambig page to redirect to the appropriate subject. He didn't obliterate any links to other articles in the process; I can't see what the controversy is about. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Point of fact: it was not a disambiguation page. IRWolfie- thought it was, I pointed out to him it wasn't and that he was mistaken. Why do you two think it was a disambiguation page? Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Because all it did was disambiguate 4 similar phrases, most of which redirected to the article IRWolfie redirected the page to. And because as IRWolfie pointed out to you on his talk page when you asked, you yourself had called it a disamb page. So per WP:BURO, whether or not it was an Official Disambiguation Page™ or just a page that mimicked one, it seems like the appropriate call to just redirect it.Heiro 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It links to different pages in a way that looks like a Disambig page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)